On 10 Sep 2023, at 18:14, Dotzero wrote: >> I agree that the SHOULD language is not very useful because it’s likely to >> be interpreted as only advice. Instead, I think we need a stronger >> statement about the consequences of this policy. For example, “Domains >> publishing p=reject MUST NOT expect mail to mailing lists and similar >> forwarders to be delivered reliably.” >> > > The “MUST NOT you suggest is normative language that many will ignore with > no particular incremental negative impact to them beyond the current > situation. I'm not thrilled with the proposed SHOULD NOT language but it > makes much more sense to me than your proposal.
One of the fundamental problems here is that the domain publishing the policy is only indirectly affected by the negative consequences of a p=reject policy. The MUST NOT that I proposed was intentionally to get the reader’s attention, and directly point out what bad things might occur. Of course, that assumes that the decision makers are reading the specification itself, and not some vendor marketing material. That is probably not a safe assumption. -Jim _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
