I'll prepare a new rev incorporating this proposed text (and some other unrelated stuff that's been lying fallow for a few months) and release it today.
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 12:02 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > It appears that Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> said: > >This makes it explicitly clear that any MUST/SHOULD stuff with regard > >to using and honoring p=reject is an issue of interoperating with > >existing Internet email features. I can accept that mechanism also, > >and so, below is my attempt at writing that proposal up. > > This seems about as good as we're going to get. > > I agree that advice about From: munging and anything else about how > forwarders might rewrite messages to circumvent DMARC is wildly out of > scope. We currently don't mention ARC at all. Dunno if it's worth > a non-normative pointer somewhere. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > -- *Todd Herr * | Technical Director, Standards & Ecosystem *e:* todd.h...@valimail.com *p:* 703-220-4153 *m:* 703.220.4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
