On 12/11/2020 9:37 AM, John Levine wrote:
In article <1ac986ff-507b-4917-9c6d-d84e9337f...@wordtothewise.com> you write:
aligned is not authorized by the domain owner and may be discarded or rejected
by the recipient.
Naah.
p=reject: all mail sent from this domain should be aligned in a DMARC
compliant way. We believe that unaligned mail is from unauthorized
senders so we ask receivers to reject it, even though that might mean
some of our authorized senders' mail is rejected too.
As soon as this specification text, here, contains language about how
this information is to be used, should be used, or could be used, it
crosses over into creating confusion about expectations of receiver
handling.
It encourages misguided language such as the receiver 'overriding'
sender policy. The sender has no policies about receiver behavior,
because there is no relationship between them. Using milder language
here doesn't help, because readers typically do not read like legal or
technical scholars.
DMARC provides information, not direction.
The spec already contains misguided perspective by talking about
'policy' records and, even worse, "policy enforcement considerations".
If the document must contain language about receiver choices in message
disposition, move it to an overtly non-normative discussion section that
legitimately covers a wide range of things that receivers do or don't do
(cast as things they might or might not do.) And make sure none of the
language hints at sender 'policy', overrides, or the like.
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
