On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:45 PM Steven M Jones <s...@crash.com> wrote:
> This puts me in mind of Section 8.5, which calls out some potential > impacts of blocking policies to "Mediators," which role doesn't otherwise > appear very often in this document. Is there any need to add Mediator > Actions/Considerations under section 5? Or does this belong in a separate > document? > We should probably review it and think about whether what it says is enough. > ISTR there were some vocal and visible mailing list operators that were > rejecting messages from domains that published "p=reject" policies, maybe > around 2014-15? I also thought they did this by checking the sending > domain's published policy in DNS, to your point about implementation. > This would be great [anec-]data to have. Do you remember where you might have seen it? > In any case, are we really going to start suggesting that list operators > start rejecting messages sent from domains that publish a blocking policy, > as official guidance? (Now I'm looking ever so forward to catching up on > these other threads - what the heck are people seeing out there??) > Well, this WG is chartered to come up with some kind of standards track solution to the problem. I don't see one in DMARCbis at the moment. Given how long this WG has existed so far, that's a fairly glaring omission. Doesn't seem to me this idea should be off the table just yet... -MSK, participating
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
