I only based my comment on previous discussions on this list and the dmarc-ietf list discussing how list implementers could/would handle this if they chose to. I know that you have consistently said that list operators shouldn't have to do anything different (other than unsubbing or rejecting accounts from domains which do publish DMARC p=reject) to accommodate DMARC implementers.
It's not so much an issue of what we imagine list owners should do, it's what they have in practice done over the past 20 years.
As you probably recall, when DKIM was new, people were making the same demands of list operators, no subject tags, no footers, rewrite the From: line, etc. Nobody did it then, and nobody's going to do it now, either. We list operators have consistently done whatever is the least work and the least disruptive. Signing outgoing mail with DKIM, sure, it's easy and breaks nothing. Screwing up the list to preserve incoming DKIM signatures, forget it.
Users love their lists and ISPs know it. If some random ISP is thinking about turning on DMARC, and looks at the bad advice, he's going to say, I'm certainly not going to annoy my users by screwing up my mailing lists, so there's no way I'm going to do DMARC.
If you want people to adopt DMARC, give them realistic advice that they can actually follow, and don't worry about the GWLs who want to publish p=reject for domains that are not and never will be phish targets.
R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
