On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 4:31 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
> Heck, MLMs should start rejecting messages sent from domains that publish > a > blocking policy *when they fail authentication on entry*!! > That's not enough to avoid the damage we're talking about. > From: rewriting is the de-facto standard. In DMARCbis we can only > substitute > "de-facto" with "proposed". Better methods, implying different, possibly > experimental, protocols are to be defined in separate documents. > Are you suggesting we put that forward as our Proposed Standard way of dealing with this problem? It's been my impression that this is not a solution that's been well received. > Let me recall that when I proposed something like that, I was told that > that > was phase II and the WG was then already in phase III. So, let's complete > DMARCbis /without cannibalizing the spec/ by saying that it MUST NOT be > used > (as it is being used already). > What you describe as "cannibalizing" is actually a matter of presenting the correct normative advice about interoperability. So I don't agree at all with that characterization. -MSK, participating
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
