On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 12:02 AM Douglas Foster < [email protected]> wrote:
> Should we expect DMARCbis rev 25 soon? Revision 24 was characterized as > minor edits, but I was expecting more. > My apologies. I've been a bit distracted by life lately. I'll have to go back and review the objections to rev 24, which seemed to focus mostly on some rewording to the tree walk, to put together a new rev. I'd estimate early next week. > I gave up reading when I saw that the "MUST NOT" language remained on the > handling action when no policy is found. > I presume you mean this text from section 4.7? 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), Mail Receivers MUST NOT apply the DMARC mechanism to the message. I don't recall consensus, rough or otherwise, from the group suggesting that this passage should be changed, nor to what it should be changed. Can you please assist me in my search for said consensus and point to the thread where that was achieved? -- *Todd Herr * | Technical Director, Standards and Ecosystem *e:* [email protected] *m:* 703.220.4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
