> Another consideration is that a non-standard, internal blocking would have > been > effective only for their users. Perhaps they though they were doing the rest > of the world a favor by following standard protocols. Had that MUST NOT been > in place then, /perhaps/ we'd have spared ourselves lots of fuss and p=reject > would have remained a seldom deployed feature.
To be clear, I don't think "seldom deployed" is right: I think there's a lot of valid and intended use for p=reject... just not for a global mailbox provider and domains like it. > +1, when we'll learn to use ARC we can stop From: munging. Will we then > retract that MUST NOT (and DMARCbis with it)? The intent, and I think it's hinted at in the text I proposed, is that when things get to where these interoperability issues are adequately mitigated and the requirements put forth in the Interoperability Consideration section should change, we would publish an RFC that "updates" this one and specifies the new requirements (or rescinds them entirely) as appropriate. Barry _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
