On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:54 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
> On April 28, 2023 2:49:48 AM UTC, Jesse Thompson <z...@fastmail.com> 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.
Restricting the "MUST NOT" to the context of 5321 achieves consensus, I think
Jesse
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
