Not picking on Murray here, but his message was the most recent that talked about p=reject with respect to non-transactional email:
On 1 Apr 2023, at 15:53, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > 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? We shouldn’t be assuming that mailing lists are the only cause of breakage for DMARC, and that transactional email is unimpacted by a p=reject policy. Some people use email forwarders so that they can have an email address that’s consistent if they change the email provider where their email is actually received. Sometimes they do this for “branding” reasons as well, such as to indicate their association with an organization or alumni association. Some of these email providers break DKIM signatures along the way. I have several such forwarding addresses, one of which is @alum.mit.edu, which breaks my DKIM signatures when I send a message to myself. If I used that address to receive transactional email from a domain with p=reject, and if my actual email provider enforced DMARC, I might not receive transactional email. -Jim _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
