Hi,
Le 23/10/2023 à 19:59, Alessandro Vesely a écrit :
My opinion is that Barry's text is good as is. As far as delimiting a
SHOULD NOT with another SHOULD is legit, this sentence sounds clear to me:
It is therefore critical that domains that host users who might
post messages to mailing lists SHOULD NOT publish p=reject. Domains
that choose to publish p=reject SHOULD implement policies that
their users not post to Internet mailing lists.
The exceptions to the latter SHOULD are rather obvious. Do we really
need to formally specify domain policing?
I for one would be interested in hearing what you believe those
exceptions are. When reading your aggressive next paragraph, I'm lead to
think that in your view, "technologies dating from the 80s deserve no
respect" is reason enough to break both SHOULDs.
There may be rough consensus for a good faith SHOULD, but definitely not
for overt disrespect of interoperability in the name of some brave new
"today's reality".
Cheers,
Baptiste
My perception is that Section 8.6 puts the issue in very clear terms.
It is even overly clearly and thoroughly explained for average readers.
Only IETF purists longing for email as it was in the 80s consider it
important to point out how DMARC is unjustly oppressing email
forwarding, including mailing lists. The rest of the world just use it
as needed. In today's reality, we should just move forward, and devise
further protocols to fix forwarding after DMARCbis is out.
By contrast, the last paragraph of Section 7.6 contradict this point and
should be removed.
Best
Ale
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
