On April 14, 2023 1:29:58 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> wrote: >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.
Agreed. If people can't get over saying some domains will have interoperability problems when that's demonstrably a technically accurate statement (and I don't see anyone claiming it isn't), I don't see how progress is possible. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
