Perfect. The goal is working towards consensus is to find something we can live with, so that's exactly what I was hoping for. I don't think it's ideal either, but I can live with it.
Scott K On Friday, April 14, 2023 10:43:24 PM EDT Mark Alley wrote: > Its not ideal, but I could live with that. That's somewhat less ambiguous > than [general purpose] domains, but still ambiguous; the Appendix or the > same section could easily clarify "unrestrictive usage policies", and then > maybe the appendix, as you say, could cover the known issues and > workarounds. > > If I'm being honest, given the different versions put forth so far, it > seems like this type of language is closer to the compromise on the > interoperability statement. The other versions say relatively the same > thing. > > - Mark Alley > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023, 7:08 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote: > > On Friday, April 14, 2023 5:54:06 PM EDT Dotzero wrote: > > > Barry wrote: > > > > > > " The idea is MUST NOT because it harms interop with long-standing > > > deployments. If you decide you're more important than that, you do > > > what you want and there it is. It's as simple as that" > > > > > > I could live with the normative MUST NOT if there were some > > > non-normative > > > text recognizing that there are domains that violate the MUST NOT but > > > not > > > in any way attempting to validate violating the MUST NOT. Is there any > > > potential that such wordsmithing could break the apparent impasse? Just > > > sort of noodling on this. > > > > Due to the interoperability affects both on a domain's own message stream > > and > > side effects on other domain's email flow, domains with [unrestrictive] > > usage > > policies MUST NOT publish DMARC records with p=reject as the policy. See > > Appendix [X] for information on how to ameliorate some of these issues and > > the > > possible side effects. > > > > I bracketed [unrestrictive] because I'm reasonably confident that's not > > the > > right word, but I didn't think of another, better one. I bracketed the > > [X] > > because I didn't look up where exactly I thought it ought to go. > > > > Note: I do think only having p=reject in here is correct because > > p=quarantine > > doesn't have the same blow-back effects on third parties. > > > > Something like that? > > > > Scott K > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dmarc mailing list > > dmarc@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
