It appears that Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> said: >I think the proposed change is incorrect. To pick a real example, gov.uk is a >PSD with a DMARC record. It's one that I expect will add psd=y once the tag >is assigned. > >There is no benefit from preventing gov.uk from sending mail and having it >pass >DMARC. We have discussed this concept before. With the draft as it stands, >even if gov.uk had psd=y in its DMARC record, if the 5322.From, 5321.MailFrom, >and DKIM d= were all gov.uk, uk.gov would be the organizational domain. With >your change there would be no organizational domain determined and so nothing >would align. Why would we want to do that?
I agree with Scott, and considered scenarios like this when I wrote the current text. A better example is uk.com which is a PSD, and has MX, SPF, and DMARC records. It already has an np= tag so I expect they'll add psd=y once it's in the registry. >It's true that without PSDs there would be no Internet as we know it, but >that's not relevant to DMARC. The only PSDs relevant to DMARC are those with >DMARC records, so I don't think that's a relevant point. Right. For DMARC, PSDs are an arcane corner case that most users will never see. I'll do a pull request to add language to obsolete 9091. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
