On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 11:55 AM Jim Fenton <[email protected]> wrote:
> It hardly seems like the agreement was tacit when it’s quite explicit in > the WG charter. > Fair enough; let me rephrase: The charter is explicit (twice, by my count) that addressing the problems with indirect mail flows is in scope for the working group. What it doesn't make clear (hence "tacit") is the understanding, at least at the time of chartering, that it's not only in scope, it's required. DMARCbis appears to address this via the text of Section 7.4, which in essence tells senders to be careful about using "p=reject" if their users might use lists, and tells receivers not to honor "p=reject" without doing a lot of other analysis first and folding that into an acceptance calculus of some kind; absent such analysis, downgrade the handling to match "p=quarantine". The completion of WGLC with no further discussion suggests that the WG believes that this is satisfactory. That's fine if so, but I claim it falls short of what I imagine was anticipated, that being a protocol solution, and I'm suggesting we should say something in the document that reconciles or explains this. Someone please feel free to correct me if any of my understanding is wrong. To reiterate something I said earlier: I'm not obstructing the progress of the document even though I disagree with a couple of the decisions made, but I think those decisions -- especially this one -- need to be explained or face scrutiny and delay during Last Call and/or IESG Evaluation. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
