Loops require two parties. Any one party can protect both parties by choosing to not perpetuate the loop.
Saying that "the other guy" should be smarter seems wishful thinking. Of course some other people will act stupidly. Fixing that problem is not in my scope. Having their mistakes interfere with my system's normal operation is not an option that I am willing to permit. DF On Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 10:20 PM Steven M Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/27/21 19:08, John R Levine wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >>> I still don't understand why failure reports about messages that > >>> happen to be failure reports are in any way special. > >> > >> Loop detection in RFC 5321 is a normative MUST because of the obvious > >> operational problems it creates. Maybe I'm being thick, but right now I > >> don't see how this is different, apart from the fact that each > >> message is > >> distinct; ... > > > > Here's perhaps another way to look at it. > > > > ... > > > > B) Someone slaps me upside the head and I fix my SPF record so my > > reports are sent correctly. > > > > This does not strike me as a hard problem. > > > It's not a hard problem. I see the last sentence in Section 3.3 as > reserving the right to deliver that slap... > > --S. > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
