> On Oct 23, 2023, at 11:00 AM, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: > > 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? > > My perception is that Section 8.6 puts the issue in very clear terms. It is > even overly clearly and thoroughly explained for average readers. Only IETF > purists longing for email as it was in the 80s consider it important to point > out how DMARC is unjustly oppressing email forwarding, including mailing > lists. The rest of the world just use it as needed.
What happened to the general purpose domain, actually subdomain, which I understood to be a non enforcing subdomain just for distribution lists. That idea was far from perfect but it seemed good. To clarify were you obliquely supporting the general purpose domain idea? I can think of alternatives but those alternatives clearly affect interoperability. Since. Discussion some weeks ago I learned here that we must consider interoperability at every step, which makes sense morally and practically in the face of a real interoperability issue. Yeah, I lurk enough to have drunk the koolaid. That said, are there list operators who participate and cogently make their case on why there’s no viable mitigating changes they could make? It’s plausible that the answer is no but it’s not 100% clear that this is a problem that can’t be solved. It’s pretty clear there aren’t good solutions on less bad ones. If this issue is already decided on and I’m beating a dead horse, I apologize. If I’m going to lurk it’s got to be every day for at least a few minutes to avoid dead horse beating that I’m sure is annoying. Neil > > >> On Mon 23/Oct/2023 10:03:36 +0200 Francesca Palombini wrote: >> I have been asked by Murray to assist with a consensus evaluation on the >> discussion that has been going on for a while about the dmarcbis document >> and how to move forward. >> I have made an attempt to evaluate consensus on the topic, trying to look at >> it from a complete outsider’s point of view and trying not to let my >> personal opinion bias my assessment. This is a summary of that evaluation. >> It is based on several threads in the mailing list: [1], [2], [3] and >> recordings of the IETF 117 wg meeting [4]. I also tried to pay attention to >> chronology of comments, because some people have expressed different support >> for different proposals, in which case I consider the latest email I can >> find as the person’s latest opinion. >> Although that was mentioned, I believe there is no consensus to move the >> document status to Informational. I believe there is a rough consensus that >> a change needs to be made in the text to include stronger requirements >> admonishing operators against deploying DMARC in a way that causes >> disruption. The mails go in many directions, but the most contentious point >> I could identify is if there ought to be some normative MUST NOT or SHOULD >> NOT text. Many people have suggested text (thank you!). I believe the ones >> with more tractions are Scott’s MUST NOT proposal [2] and Barry’s SHOULD NOT >> proposal [3]. I believe most people who’d prefer just descriptive text have >> stated that they can live with the SHOULD NOT text, but they have stronger >> objections towards the MUST NOT text. There also a number of people who >> strongly believe MUST NOT is the way to go, but these people have not >> objected strongly to Barry’s latest proposed text in the mailing list >> (although they have made their preference clear during the meeting [4]). As >> a consequence, I believe there is a stronger (very rough) consensus for >> going with Barry’s SHOULD NOT text. I also believe there is consensus to add >> some non-normative explanatory text (be it in the interoperability or >> security consideration sections, or both) around it. >> I suggest the authors and the working group start with Berry’s text and >> fine-tune the details around it. >> In particular, as another AD that might have to ballot on this document, I >> suggest that you pay particular attention to the text around the SHOULD NOT, >> as also Murray suggested in [5]. I have often blocked documents with the >> following text: “If SHOULD is used, then it must be accompanied by at least >> one of: (1) A general description of the character of the exceptions and/or >> in what areas exceptions are likely to arise. Examples are fine but, except >> in plausible and rare cases, not enumerated lists. (2) A statement about >> what should be done, or what the considerations are, if the "SHOULD" >> requirement is not met. (3) A statement about why it is not a MUST.”. >> I appreciate everybody’s patience and constructive discussion. >> Francesca, ART AD >> [1]: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Z2hoBQLfacWdxALzx4urhKv-Z-Y/ >> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Z2hoBQLfacWdxALzx4urhKv-Z-Y/> >> [2]: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/wvuuggXnpT-8sMU49q3Xn9_BjHs/ >> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/wvuuggXnpT-8sMU49q3Xn9_BjHs/> >> [3]: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/k6zxrKDepif26uWr0DeNdCK1xx4/ >> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/k6zxrKDepif26uWr0DeNdCK1xx4/> >> [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O28ShKGRAU >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O28ShKGRAU> >> [5]: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Ld-VObjtihm5uWd9liVzMouQ1sY/ >> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Ld-VObjtihm5uWd9liVzMouQ1sY/> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
