You really think it needs to be BCP 14 key words, rather than saying in plain English that if there’s no DMARC record we are outside the realm of DMARC?
Barry On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 5:15 PM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, August 26, 2022 11:51:51 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > On Fri 26/Aug/2022 17:21:09 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: > > > Personally, I'm fine with the text here, but I would also be happy > > > with removal of the BCP 14 key words here, like this: > > > > > > NEW > > > If the set produced by the DNS Tree Walk contains no DMARC policy > record > > > (i.e., any indication that there is no such record as opposed to a > > > transient DNS error), then the DMARC mechanism does not apply to this > > > message and Mail Receivers need to use other means to decide how to > > > handle the message. > > > END > > > > This is nicer than MUST NOT. It makes more sense, since we also removed > > the SHOULD when the record is found and the test fails. > > I very much disagree. If there's no DMARC record, whatever you do after > that > is not DMARC and we should say so. Softening this language opens the door > for > all kinds of nonsense. People can and will do nonsensical things, but we > need > to make it very clear that this isn't what this document is about. > Tampering > with the opt-in nature of DMARC is a recipe for interoperability problems. > > Scott K > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
