Note that I asked Two questions. Your answer appears directed to the second question. The answer to the first question appears fairly clear to me. Administrators of a system can restrict or delete a user account. It really is as simple as that. So in that respect the answer is that ultimately an individual account users do not supersede the wishes/policy of the domain owners representatives.
The second question is a bit more interesting, but ultimately leads one back to the first question. As far as being long settled, I would think that NSF AUP is an interesting precedent. Michael Hammer On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 2:42 PM Dave Crocker <dcroc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/8/2020 10:50 AM, Dotzero wrote: > > And here we get to some of the crucial unresolved questions involving > > email: "Does the wishes of a user of an account at a domain supercede > > the policies of the domain owner/administrator of a domain?" > > It's not only not crucial, it's entirely resolved, and always had been, > in terms of real-world practice. The view that it hasn't been is frankly > an arrogance of author domain owners. > > Author domain owners do not have a relationship with receivers or > recipients, so their policies have no enforcement potential. Receivers > and recipients are completely independent. They do not 'override' the > domain owner policies. Rather, they apply their own policies. Always > have. > > This is why the language in DMARC would be far more constructive to > remove any hint of attempting to direct receiver or recipient behavior, > and instead merely reflect the domain owner's assessment of message > validity, along the lines of the language I offered. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > dcroc...@gmail.com > 408.329.0791 > > Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter > American Red Cross > dave.crock...@redcross.org > >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
