On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 5:44:46 PM EST Barry Leiba wrote: > > Scott, I have many problems with your response. Was it intended as an > > ad hominem? It certainly came across that way. > > It doesn't seem even remotely so to me. Please be careful with > attributing intent. No one tried to say that we shouldn't listen to > you. > > > If the NP objective can be stated in a sentence or two, you should have > > done so, instead of telling me to read years of archive. An objective > > that cannot be explained tersely is not sufficiently defined. > > It *is* reasonable to expect you to review earlier discussions, rather > than to ask the working group to revisit them without a sense of how > you're adding new information.
Thanks. Yes, that was my intent. To give a short summary, in the interests of moving forward: The domain owner publishing the DMARC record knows and controls what exists and what doesn't. They don't have to guess. The question was, particularly in the context of PSD, but not exclusively, would record publishers find it useful to be able to publish a different (and presumably more strict) policy for non-existent domains. More p=reject equals more bad stuff not getting delivered. I think we can say it's an pretty unqualified yes in the PSD realm: $ dig +short txt _dmarc.gov "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=none; np=reject; rua=mailto:[email protected]"; $ dig +short txt _dmarc.mil "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=none; np=reject; rua=mailto:[email protected]"; $ dig +short txt _dmarc.gov.uk "v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=none;np=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s;fo=1;rua=mailto:dmarc- [email protected]" $ dig +short txt _dmarc.police.uk "v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;adkim=s;aspf=s;fo=1;rua=mailto:dmarc- [email protected];ruf=mailto:[email protected]"; All of the current PSDs that have published records with any policy other than none have different sp= and np= policies. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
