On 12/2/2020 6:28 AM, Benny Lyne Amorsen wrote:
Perhaps, in retrospect, the p= should have had something like the
following values:
none
untrustworthy
invalid
p= mistakenly chose to use the language of receiver actions to describe
what is actually domain-owner judgements. This is unfortunate, since it
risks making the sender believe that it is possible to dictate receiver
policy.
Perhaps new names can be found, and the old ones kept as historical
aliases?
Yes! I would deeply wish we could change the vocabulary to something
like this.
However I'd expect too much persistence, due to operational history.
Still, it would be really nice if the working group could convince
itself to specify a better vocabulary.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
[email protected]
408.329.0791
Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
