Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:55:36 -0700 


On April 28, 2023 2:49:48 AM UTC, Jesse Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:40 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 10:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> Also, state that serious consideration includes testing p=quarantine; 
>>> pct=0^H t=y.
>> 
>> I was going to say something similar but I think that it is implied by 
>> section A.7
>
>Actually, I like referencing A.7 here as a pointer.
>
>This achieves consensus on the rewrite objection. 
>
>A.7 describes the rewrite without condoning it:
>
>   Operational experience showed ...
>   ... header rewriting by an
>   intermediary meant that a Domain Owner's aggregate reports could
>   reveal to the Domain Owner how much of its traffic was routing
>   through intermediaries that don't rewrite the RFC5322.From header

I think we can describe what people are doing without placing a strong value 
judgement on it, but I think we have to say we haven't assessed all the 
associated interoperability impacts of it and at least mention that 5321 says 
not to do it.

Scott K

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
























					Reply via email to