Hm... Why not say "SHOULD use tree walk", and then document, as explanation for "SHOULD" instead of "MUST", non-normative reasons why you might not?
Waddyathink? Barry On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 5:05 PM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > > It appears that Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> said: > > > >What's the incentive that any existing DMARC users (senders or receivers) > >would have to invest additional resources in another email > >authentication protocol? > > We have two of the largest mail operators in the world saying that if > they can't tell which org domain scheme domain expects, they won't > implement the tree walk. We have to do something or we are wasting our > time. > > So how about this: in the tree walk, you look for DMARC records that > have an explicit psd=y/n/u tag. If you find at least one record with a > tag, you use the new scheme. If you find no records with a tag, you > fall back to the old scheme. I think this will let people do > everything they can do with the current tree walk, while being > backward compatible. If you want a domain to be an org domain you put > psd=n, if you want the tree walk to skip it and keep looking, you put > psd=u, and if it's one of the 0.001% of domains that actually is a > PSD, you put psd=y. > > We already added DiscoveryType to the aggregate report schema so we > are OK there. > > R's, > John > > PS: Whether we say people SHOULD NOT use SPF is a separate issue. > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
