Hi, Le 08/07/2023 à 20:24, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > > You can equally argue that these receivers are merely following the policy > advice provided by the sending domain (it has reject right in the name) and > this problem is entirely generated by sender's inappropriate use of p=reject. > > I don't think engineering the location where the blame lands is the right > place to focus. I've done plenty of blame avoidance engineering in my day, > but I don't think it's what the IETF should be doing.
This is not about blame avoidance. Blame avoidance is what happens right now on this very list, with author domains and mail receivers first blaming each other, then colluding to accuse absentee forwarders… This is about avoiding the Tragedy of Commons where everyone waits for the breakage to somehow solve itself (or, more cynically, for the victim to resignate). The standard can help by clearly stating who has to act in which circumstances. A MUST is better than a SHOULD, an it might well be that two SHOULDs are worse than just one. Cheers, Baptiste _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
