It appears that Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> said: >We could do I think any of the following and they are roughly semantically >equivalent: > >[general purpose]* domains MUST NOT publish p=reject to preserve >interoperability > >to preserve interoperability, domains SHOULD NOT publish p=reject unless they >are [not general purpose]* domains > >which could be accompanied by: > >[not general purpose]* domains SHOULD determine their email authentication >deployment is accurate and complete before publishing restrictive policies >(p=quarntine or p=reject) to avoid interoperability issues. > >Publishing DMARC records with restrictive policies does cause interoperability >problems for some normal email usage patterns. Potential impacts MUST be >considered before any domain publishes a restrictive policy. > >* whatever the right formulation is, that's a related, but distinct (and I >think less controversial question).
I'm OK with any of these. I do think it's important to make it clear that you lose interopn when you publish a policy on a domain that's sending more than transactions or spam. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
