Just for context, this issue was a comment I made based on this paragraph, which is in 4.10.1 of -33:
Note: PSD policy is not used for Organizational Domains that have published a DMARC Policy Record. Specifically, this is not a mechanism to provide feedback addresses (rua/ruf) when an Organizational Domain has declined to do so. The second sentence there seemed like we're telling people not to try to do that, or at least don't expect it to interoperate, so I'd suggested actually being proscriptive about it. Not a requirement, just a discussion point. -MSK On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 9:50 AM John R. Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Oct 2024, Todd Herr wrote: > > Issue is here - > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues/157 > > The suggestion is to forbid sending reports when the dmarc record has > psd=y. > > The original point of PSD in .bank and .insurance was so that they could > track the DMARC status of their registered domains and help them (or make > them) follow an agreed policy. Collecting reports is an essential part of > that. > > Trying change it is not a bood idea, and I suspect that if we did, people > would ignore the change because that's not how PSDs work now. > > Regards, > John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
