On Friday, April 14, 2023 5:54:06 PM EDT Dotzero wrote: > Barry wrote: > > " The idea is MUST NOT because it harms interop with long-standing > deployments. If you decide you're more important than that, you do > what you want and there it is. It's as simple as that" > > I could live with the normative MUST NOT if there were some non-normative > text recognizing that there are domains that violate the MUST NOT but not > in any way attempting to validate violating the MUST NOT. Is there any > potential that such wordsmithing could break the apparent impasse? Just > sort of noodling on this.
Due to the interoperability affects both on a domain's own message stream and side effects on other domain's email flow, domains with [unrestrictive] usage policies MUST NOT publish DMARC records with p=reject as the policy. See Appendix [X] for information on how to ameliorate some of these issues and the possible side effects. I bracketed [unrestrictive] because I'm reasonably confident that's not the right word, but I didn't think of another, better one. I bracketed the [X] because I didn't look up where exactly I thought it ought to go. Note: I do think only having p=reject in here is correct because p=quarantine doesn't have the same blow-back effects on third parties. Something like that? Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
