> On Dec 30, 2014, at 5:39 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dmarc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker >> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 4:58 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04 >> >> On 12/29/2014 12:32 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: >>> I suppose it's ultimately another example of local policy. >> >> Depends on what that means. >> >> The rule within the protocol needs to be -- and is -- mechanical and >> universal: In order to apply DMARC policy, you must first obtain an >> authenticated (or, described more usefully, 'authorized') domain name that >> is aligned with the From: field domain. >> >> A protocol that treats an initial, temporary error as producing a permanent >> error is a pretty fragile protocol, in a networking environment. As such, >> DMARC should at least strongly recommend retries, in the case of no passes >> and at least one temp fail. >> > > The choices offered were tempfail and allow retry or don't apply DMARC > policy. I was expressing a preference for tempfail which ultimately would > degrade to a permfail after whatever number of retries the sending system has > set. > +1
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
