On 8/5/2023 4:23 PM, Neil wrote:
> The language used for DMARC has always been problematic. "Policy"
> implies control, but the domain owner has no control over the receiving
> platform. Quarantine and Reject declare control that also does not
exist.
Suppose you set a policy of p=reject that’s still your policy even if
receivers aren’t obligated to honor your policy. But it’s a policy
nonetheless. It’s not required that a policy be followed for it to be
policy. That aside, there’s unlikely to be another word that works
better than’s worth any confusion or disruption that could be caused
by changing the jargon.
www.dictionary.com
Policy Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com <#>
Policy definition, a definite course of action adopted for the sake of
expediency, facility, etc.: We have a new company policy. See more.
🔗 https://www.dictionary.com/browse/policy
<https://www.dictionary.com/browse/policy>
Also, we understand who our audiences are in reality. Sometimes it’ll
be a harried admin skimming the RFC, and others will take the time to
do a deep dive. Even the harried admin scanning today might want to
dive deep when he has more time. So out of respect for those who want
to get things done and solve problems quickly and those who wish to
grok the new DMARC spec, I think the optimal solution would be to
follow E.B. White, making every word count, having empathy for the
reader, and avoiding distractions that could bog the stressed reader down.
When writing specifications, yes, it is good to consider the casual or
harried reader. To that end, vocabulary should not mislead. 'Policy'
misleads about the effect of choosing a particular value.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
dcroc...@gmail.com
mast:@dcrocker@mastodon.social
408.329.0791
Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
Information & Planning Coordinator
American Red Cross
dave.crock...@redcross.org
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
