Why not say "SHOULD use tree walk", and then document, as explanation
for "SHOULD" instead of "MUST", non-normative reasons why you might
not?
I don't think that will fly with the VLMPs. The mandatory PSD seems
relatively easy to implement, just add it to the template you use for
everything.
R's,
John
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.
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
