It appears that Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> said: >In what way is this a new issue that has not already been argued to death in >the WG? I think for WGLC, we've already done this. We will, no doubt get to >have this conversation during the IETF >last call, but for the working group, this strikes me as exactly the type of >relitigation of issues we've been counseled to avoid.
Yup. No possible change will make everyone happier, or even everyone no less happy than they are now, so leave it alone. I agree we'll hear about it in IETF LC no matter what it says. R's, John >On February 29, 2024 6:54:57 PM UTC, Todd Herr ><[email protected]> wrote: >>Colleagues, >> >>I've been reading DMARCbic rev -30 today with a plan to collect the first >>set of minor edits and I came across a sentence that I believe goes beyond >>minor, so wanted to get a sanity check. >> >>Section 7.6, Domain Owner Actions, ends with the following sentence: >> >>In particular, this document makes explicit that domains for >>general-purpose email MUST NOT deploy a DMARC policy of p=reject. >> >> >>I don't believe this to be true, however. Rather, Section 8.6, >>Interoperability Considerations, says SHOULD NOT on the topic (e.g., "It is >>therefore critical that domains that host users who might post messages to >>mailing lists SHOULD NOT publish p=reject") >> >>Section 7.6 therefore should be updated to read "domains for >>general-purpose email SHOULD NOT deploy a DMARC policy of p=reject", yes? >> > _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
