Michael I don't see john's comments as ad hominem. He's describing how his mail system interprets mail flow.
But I do think a lot of this discussion is getting into very esoteric cases. I'd suggest trying to put your thoughts into a draft we can sit and chew on. Tim On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 6:16 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > > On 12/5/20 3:10 PM, John Levine wrote: > > In article <dd59f2f3-b17e-6c2b-f756-7dcad2702...@mtcc.com> you write: > >> If ARC is advocating for a bypass of p=reject that introduces a new > >> state. If my policy is reject, I want you to reject the mail. If I want > >> you to reject the mail unless you think it has come from an acceptable > >> place with receipts, then you need a new policy tag like > >> reject-except-valid-arc. > > Other people will have to speak for themselves but on my system > > > > a) I don't believe you. > > > > 2) I don't care. > > > > I think you will find this reaction pretty common. > > > > I see lots of mail going through my system like the stuff I described > > for the town clerk. It is obvious who it is intended for, the only way > > to deliver it to that recipient is to forward it, and if the DMARC > > policy says not to do that, the policy is wrong. I don't even need ARC > > for that, although ARC can be useful for mail that takes indirect > > routes for the mailing lists they subscribe to. > > > > You can say, no I am smarter than those guys and I REALLY REALLY mean > > it, but see 2) above. > > > > Can you keep your contempt for me off this list? This is not even > responsive to what I wrote, and is nothing more than an ad hominem. > > And your anecdotal evidence drawn from a tiny system is very suspect. > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
