We simply fundamentally disagree here. Barry
On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 12:33 AM Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 3:02 AM Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> 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? >> >> When do folks get to line up so they can plead the case for their reason? >> >> I, for one, am not. We often use "SHOULD NOT" incorrectly to mean >> "MUST NOT, but we know it will be widely violated so we're saying >> SHOULD NOT". We need to stop doing that. > > > A "standard" which is widely violated is not a standard. To publish a > standard one knows is and will be widely violated is a bit of a fool's > errand, n'est-ce pas? We need to stop doing that. > > Michael Hammer _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
