> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Scott Kitterman > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:55 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-07.txt > > The only case I can think of where I can envision not heeding this > advice is if you think the senders authentication is broken. In that > case I believe you should be looking at how to send auth failure > reports. > > I think this is a MUST NOT. All it will lead to is pain. > > I will confess it's possible that I'm overly cynical about the ability > of giving serious thought reliably producing the correct result here, > but I really think that for whatever corner case that may exist, > there's globally more harm associated with given people a free pass to > think it over.
If I may paraphrase John Levine, no amount of MUST NOTting will prevent a pinhead from being a pinhead. In those cases, I prefer to pick RFC2119 words geared toward the competent reader. That's why I went with SHOULD NOT here. But I'll go with consensus, also accepting that the IESG might correct us in either direction. Thus, what do others think? _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
