On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 4:52 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> On 06/03/2024 15:42, Todd Herr wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 10:45 PM Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> > wrote: > > > >> SHOULD NOT was the consensus call, and the correction Todd > >> proposes is just making that sentence consistent with that. > > > Yet, Section 7.6 still has: > > In particular, this document makes explicit that domains for general- > purpose email MUST NOT deploy a DMARC policy of p=reject. > > > Yes, due to an oversight on my part, one that I identified during my Last Call read of DMARCbis, and subsequently opened this thread to transparently confirm that I had indeed overlooked that phrase in 7.6 during previous releases and that I believed that it was an oversight and should be corrected. The chairs have confirmed that it was an oversight on my part, and the language will be changed to SHOULD NOT in rev -31, as per the discussion in this thread and the previous consensus. -- *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
