Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

[Scott Kitterman]

On April 18, 2023 10:25:00 PM UTC, Jim Fenton <fen...@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:
>On 9 Apr 2023, at 11:33, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
>> There is an alternative, though: we can acknowledge that because of how
>> those deploying DMARC view their needs over interoperability, DMARC is not
>> appropriate as an IETF standard, and we abandon the effort to make it
>> Proposed Standard.
>>
>> I see that as the only way forward if we cannot address the damage that
>> improperly deployed DMARC policies do to mailing lists.
>
>Unfortunately, much of the world outside IETF sees an RFC number and assumes 
>Standards Track. We have RFC 7489, which is Informational, which then resulted 
>in a mandate [1] for all executive-branch US Government domains to publish 
>p=reject. I have to believe that they thought it was Standards Track when they 
>did this.
>
>-Jim
>
>[1] https://cyber.dhs.gov/assets/report/bod-18-01.pdf

It's not just in the US either.

That said, I don't think we should throw up our hands and go home.  I think 
what we have so far is enough improvement over RFC 7489 that it's worth getting 
published.  I also think we can appropriately describe the interoperability 
impacts associated with DMARC in a useful way that will provide overall 
benefits, even though we don't have it solved.

Scott K

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc