On 12/12/2020 10:51 AM, John R Levine wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Dave Crocker wrote:
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.
I agree with you, which is why I said "believe" and "request".
Except that that runs contrary to my point, rather than being compatible
with it.
Any an all discussion of receiver /use/ of DMARC needs to be moved to a
separate section and it needs to refrain from any linguistic form that
characterizes that use as being in response to domain owner desires.
If we're going to have any description of p=none at all it needs to
emphasize the point that it's telling you that they consider the
messages unusually unimportant. This appears to be at odds with what
some DMARC users believe.
It isn't about the 'importance' of the messages. It is about the domain
owner's view of the implication of the success or failure of DMARC
validation.
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
