No. This just adds more useless complexity that is unlikely to get implemented.
While composing a DMARC record, setting role=org seems more likely than psd=n.
For the umpteenth time, the goal here is to be as compatible as possible
with the way that DMARC works now. An important part of that is not to
ask people to change their existing DMARC records because we know that
most of them won't.
The normal case, like 99.99% of the time, is that the PSD does not publish
a DMARC record at all. The org domain has a DMARC record if it sends mail
or its subdomains use relaxed alignment. The way Scott and I propose to
do a tree walk, that will get the same alignment as now with no changes to
the DMARC record. That includes millions, maybe tens of millions of
domains.
A few PSDs publish DMARC records, either because they have a policy about
their registrants' mail, or because the PSD itself has an MX. We want
them to add psd=y. That includes 52 domains. (I counted them.)
As an extreme corner case, if you are registered under a PSD that
publishes a DMARC record but erroneously doesn't include psd=y, you can
use psd=n as a kludge to prevent evil sibling alignment. That currently
includes about 45 of those 52 domains, but I think we can get it close to
zero because we have contacts at many of them.
I'm finding it hard to understand the advantage of a scheme that requires
millions of DMARC records to change rather than one that changes 52.
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
