On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 7:18 PM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd mention indirect mail flows explicitly, rather than referring to > generic > interoperability problems. But several mailing list adopted expedients in > order to overcome those problems. Furthermore, there are experimental > protocols that address the issue maintaining the end-to-end nature of > existing > identifier fields, and more are going to come. It is possible that a > future > ecosystem will support strict DMARC policies for everyone. Thus it is a > "MUST > until" rather than unless. Is that compliant with RFC 2119? > I don't think I've ever seen an RFC published that uses a "MUST until" kind of construct. Since we can't predict the future, and since this document doesn't acknowledge any of the external mitigations to which you refer (in particular, it doesn't reference ARC), I don't think it should try. -MSK, participating
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
