I think Richard’s suggestion would be a fine addition to what’s there now,
but not a replacement.  I would really prefer MUST in Richard’s text over
the SHOULD, given the “trusted attestation”.

Barry

On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 12:09 PM Richard Clayton <[email protected]>
wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In message <[email protected]>, Alessandro
> Vesely <[email protected]> writes
>
> >Section 8.6, *Interoperability Considerations*
> >
> >OLD
> >   |  It is therefore critical that receiving domains MUST NOT reject
> >   |  incoming messages solely on the basis of a p=reject policy by the
> >   |  sending domain.  Receiving domains must use the DMARC policy as
> >   |  part of their disposition decision, along with other knowledge and
> >   |  analysis.
> >
> >
> >NEW
> >   |  It is therefore REQUIRED that receiving domains exempt from DMARC
> >   |  disposition messages forwarded by trusted third parties, either
> >   |  aliases or mailing lists, provided that forwarders are authenticated
> >   |  by a secure method.  Receiving domains must seek methods to
> >   |  acknowledge forwarders' quality and grant trust where deserved.
>
> I think that wording is a better approach ... but the issue is not
> whether the forwarder is trusted per se, but whether it reports the
> origin of the email in a trusted manner and that origin leads one to
> believe that the DMARC failure is to be overlooked.
>
> A forwarder may have accumulated all the trust in the world, but if an
> authorised user is compromised and sends email From: [email protected]
> then PayPal's p=reject should be honoured.
>
> The second part of the paragraph is aspirational and can be omitted
>
> so:
>
> Receiving domains SHOULD exempt from DMARC disposition messages
> forwarded from third parties where there is a trusted attestation by the
> third party that the email met the requirements for a DMARC pass when it
> was received by them.
>
> - --
> richard                                                   Richard Clayton
>
> Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
> Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
>
> iQA/AwUBZMU5Rt2nQQHFxEViEQKXxwCcDLxrP46oAluJh5yRvkR3QkY36KUAn02X
> fnGnu8q4Mi6uPJI+Aox+CqU8
> =hJTb
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to