Re: [dmarc-ietf] Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

[Neil Anuskiewicz]

On Apr 11, 2023, at 9:25 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote:  On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 8:25 PM Neil Anuskiewicz <neil=40marmot-tech....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: The standard and the document should reflect that it’s already making a massive difference and could do even more. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect ml managers to adapt. If cyber crime was street crime people would be panicking in the streets. The IETF is a consensus-based organization.  I suggest that if we're going to claim DMARC as-is has the consensus of the community, that community needs to be representative of the interests of the MLM developers and operators.  Since we keep talking about "them", I don't think it is. Expecting them to adapt (or perhaps "comply" is the better word) merely because we say so feels a lot like pushing on a string. Fair enough. You’re saying this is a political process with stakeholders whose interests must be accounted for. I get that.  Is there really going to be language in the new standard saying general purpose domains must be p=none type of language? That’s quite a compromise if it’s the case. Like all of us I’m busy and tired so maybe didn’t read everything including nuance. I thought the jist of one bit was that “general purpose” domains must have a p=none. What is a general purpose domain? Like could the org domain of some organization be called general purpose? N

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc