On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 11:38 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > This is certainly worth a discussion. > 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? > My recollection is similar to Steve's except that I saw the talk but didn't see the walking the walk. > 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... > I don't think it should be off the table but believe it is only one of the options that MLMs/forwarders have. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
