On April 26, 2023 8:08:39 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue 25/Apr/2023 20:27:18 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least
>> some traction out of both groups:
>>
>>> [some appropriate description] domains MUST NOT publish restrictive DMARC
>>> policies due to interoperability issues
>>
>> Leaving aside (for now) the question of what goes into [some appropriate
>> description] and with the assumption that there will be some non-normative
>> discussion to amplify whatever that is and probably give some indication
>> about
>> what domains might do to not be one of those domains, is there anyone who
>> just
>> can't live with that formulation of the situation?
>
>
>Me, for one. Because more than 98% of domains are going to fall into the
>description, however we word it, that statement makes the whole I-D
>nonsensical. Cannot we just tell the problem without MUSTard?
>
>In any case, using the complement of [some appropriate description] is
>certainly easier. For example:
>
> Forcing authentication into Internet mail by publishing restrictive DMARC
> policies breaks some well established patterns of usage. Publishing such
> policies is thus RECOMMENDED only for domains [in this other appropriate
> description].
>
Thanks.
I understand your objection to be that the proposed description of the
interoperability problems would apply to too many domains, regardless of the
modifier we might use. Is that correct?
I don't understand the technical issue associated with that objection. I get
that you feel the construction is too negative, but I don't have a sense you
think it's inaccurate. Focusing on the technical aspects of this, would you
please help me understand what you think is technically incorrect about it?
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
