On Tue 24/Oct/2023 15:20:02 +0200 Baptiste Carvello wrote:
Le 23/10/2023 à 19:59, Alessandro Vesely a écrit :
My opinion is that Barry's text is good as is. As far as delimiting a SHOULD
NOT with another SHOULD is legit, this sentence sounds clear to me:
It is therefore critical that domains that host users who might
post messages to mailing lists SHOULD NOT publish p=reject. Domains
that choose to publish p=reject SHOULD implement policies that
their users not post to Internet mailing lists.
The exceptions to the latter SHOULD are rather obvious. Do we really need to
formally specify domain policing?
I for one would be interested in hearing what you believe those exceptions are.
When reading your aggressive next paragraph, I'm lead to think that in your
view, "technologies dating from the 80s deserve no respect" is reason enough to
break both SHOULDs.
I absolutely didn't mean to be disrespectful. I'm sorry that interpretation
came up. What I wanted to say is that our persistent attention toward this
topic is probably not met by average readers, and any outcome will likely be
unattended. IOW, I perceive our continuing this discussion as a waste of time,
not because I don't respect the value of interoperability, but because the
discussion doesn't seem to be productive. Getting back to addressing the
issues with indirect mail flows, for example, would be more fruitful than
philosophizing on who is permitted to use DMARC.
As for domain policing exceptions, let me mention internal mailing lists which
can manage to be fully interoperable notwithstanding DMARC. I also believe
that it is possible to automate per-user whitelisting of all forwarded traffic,
relying on ARC, so as to avoid the much abhorred From: munging. Domains within
such an environment can certainly deploy p=reject without worries. In general,
people should balance interoperation needs and security requirements.
There may be rough consensus for a good faith SHOULD, but definitely not for
overt disrespect of interoperability in the name of some brave new "today's
reality".
If there is rough consensus, we can just move on, without further polishing
Section 8.6. There is no disrespect, just clearance.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
