>You will not find me disagreeing with you, although I might use different >words than 'configuration issue'. However, I'm pretty sure we're not the >only folks in similar situations (consider, from an older thread, >netscape.com / aol.com addresses). ...
This is a tradeoff between senders and receivers. You're saying that for whatever reason, you're not prepared to generate mail that passes DMARC as currently defined, so you want receivers to do more work to work around that. I'm certainly not opposed to changes to DMARC to make it handle situations where it fails now (see my strawman at draft-levine-may-forward-01 to better support mailing lists and the like) but the justification here doesn't seem very strong. 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)
