On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:21 PM Hector Santos <hsan...@isdg.net> wrote:
> > All the best, > Hector Santos > > > > On Sep 13, 2023, at 8:51 PM, Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:28 PM Hector Santos <hsan...@isdg.net> wrote: > >> On Sep 11, 2023, at 9:24 AM, Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> chastised >> Douglas Foster >> >> Absolutely incorrect. DMARC is a deterministic pass|fail approach based >> on validation through DKIM or SPF pass (or if both pass). It says nothing >> about the acceptability/goodness/badness of a source. >> >> >> So why are we here? >> > > Because you care? > > > I do. > > >> Correct or incorrect, a published p=reject has to mean something to the >> verifier who is doing the domain a favor by a) implementing the protocol >> and b) the goal of eliminating junk. If there are false negatives, whose >> fault is that? The Domain, The Verifier or the Protocol? >> > > DMARC does one thing and one thing only. It mitigates against direct > domain abuse in a deterministic manner, nothing else. It doesn't stop spam > and it doesn't depend on or involve reputation. It is but one tool among a > number of tools that various parties can choose from. A message passing > DMARC validation does not mean the message is "good". There is no question > of fault. Perhaps you should recommend changes to incorporate a blame game > if your goal is to determine fault. > > > Deterministic means there is no question - you follow the protocol. Your > (speaking in general) opinions don’t matter. > It means that the output of the algorithm is deterministic. It does not mean that the receiver blindly act on that output. As has been stated many times by many people, a policy assertion is a request by the sending domain administrator/owner, not a mandate. That is why local policy on the part of the receiver overrides a sender policy assertion. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
