Attempt to make it a tad more concise (I think), altering some of the language:
--------------------- There can be inherent damage to the ability to use certain SMTP-based systems in conjunction with a policy of quarantine or reject. These could include, though are not limited to, mailing lists, forwarding services, and other types of indirect mail flows. Especially in situations where the sending domain is SPF-only, or the intermediary is known to alter messages. If the users of the domain may utilize these types of systems, the domain administrator MUST NOT deploy a policy of quarantine or reject without serious considerations to the impact to interoperability. These considerations will be informed by careful analysis of DMARC aggregate reports prior to deploying such a policy. Some third-party systems may be willing to create a workaround for these situations, though it cannot be guaranteed. Domain owners MAY choose to create a sub-domain (listmail.example.org) or cousin domain (listmail-example.org) which uses a different policy for users wishing to utilize those services. --------------------- If you're looking for me, I'm standing behind the firewall. -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast > -----Original Message----- > From: dmarc <dmarc-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 1:07 AM > To: dmarc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for > p=reject and indirect mail flows > > > > On April 27, 2023 2:32:49 AM UTC, Jim Fenton <fen...@bluepopcorn.net> > wrote: > >On 26 Apr 2023, at 9:06, John Levine wrote: > > > >> It seems to me there are two somewhat different kinds of DMARC > >> damange that we might separate. One is what happens on discussion > >> lists, where messages get lost and in the process unrelated > >> recipients get unsubscribed. The other is simple forwarding and > >> send-to-a-friend which gets lost but is less likely to cause problems > >> for the recipients beyond not getting the mail they want. > > > >Isn’t (in the latter case) the recipients not getting the mail they want > >exactly an > interoperability problem? > > It absolutely is. The difference, my view, is that if the domain owner has a > policy > that leads to you not getting your mail, it's a different level of severity > than you > both don't get your mail and end up unsubscribed from the mailing list. > > One might make a case that the former is "works as designed" since the sending > domain owner has published policy indicating he doesn't want you to get your > mail and your mail host has decided to honor that request (I think that's > wrong, > but I can see the logic). I don't think there's any way to claim third > party's > getting bounced from a mailing list is OK. > > Scott K > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc__;! > !CQl3mcHX2A!HIiPwxlibmp0jYdSD3ap2XsLrLB28EJJ-xUe- > XVECMs6n5re7eRqcuXfev2ioFKD8ouqGUsAw9o76AycuD29$ _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
