Depending on the definition of "valid reason", is not "An organization wants unauthenticated mail to be rejected" a valid reason? Although, with the noted interoperability issues, I'm not sure if it qualifies.
On Sat, Apr 1, 2023, 1:53 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 5:48 PM Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> But when you deploy DMARC and force lists to change the way they work, >>> the experience is altered in a way users perceive as a degradation. We're >>> taking something significant away, and the benefit is not perceived to be >>> worthwhile. >>> >> >> It may or may not be true for any given situation. You are assuming facts >> not in evidence. There are end users who do not subscribe to email lists. >> My wife is one such person. If users overall were truly upset as you >> indicated, we would have expected users to flee en masse from the large >> free webmail providers after they switched to p=reject. And yet they are >> still around providing email services to millions and millions of users. >> > > Oh, the facts are very much in evidence. There's no need to assume > anything. > > Hang around any IETF meeting for a few hours. It may not take even that > long for someone to ask when the <expletive> DMARC problem is going to be > fixed. > > I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that reality is nowhere near >> as neat and simple as some might make things out to be. >> >> I would support SHOULD NOT but I think MUST NOT is a bridge too far. It >> falls into the category of King Canute commanding the waters to retreat. >> Publishing a standard (MUST NOT) which you know <some/many> will ignore >> reduces the credibility of a standards organization which does so. SHOULD >> NOT with an admonishment and explanation as to potential consequences makes >> more sense to me. >> > > Quoting from RFC 2119 which defines the all-caps key words we've come to > know and love: > > 4 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119#section-4>. SHOULD NOT This > phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that > there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the > particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full > implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed > before implementing any behavior described with this label. > > If we use SHOULD NOT, as you suggest, there's an implication that there > might be a valid reason for non-transactional mail to use "p=reject". Are > we okay with that? > > -MSK, participating > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
