Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue: Domain Owner policy in Section 5

2022-08-28 Thread Alessandro Vesely
+1, but the concern of not informing suspicious parties about local policies should then be risen in aggregate-reporting, Security Considerations (currently blank), shouldn't it? The current wording makes an attempt to distinguish overrides due to authentication failures, such as mailing

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue: Domain Owner policy in Section 5

2022-08-28 Thread Dotzero
+1 to Scott's suggestion. Michael Hammer On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 5:49 PM Barry Leiba wrote: > I’m happy with Scott’s suggestion. > > Barry > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 5:11 PM Scott Kitterman > wrote: > >> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 1:43:49 PM EDT Barry Leiba wrote: >> > > On Wed 24/Aug/2022

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue: Domain Owner policy in Section 5

2022-08-27 Thread Barry Leiba
I’m happy with Scott’s suggestion. Barry On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 5:11 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2022 1:43:49 PM EDT Barry Leiba wrote: > > > On Wed 24/Aug/2022 21:40:20 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: > > > > I think “SHOULD do what the domain owner says” is too strong, and

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue: Domain Owner policy in Section 5

2022-08-27 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, August 25, 2022 1:43:49 PM EDT Barry Leiba wrote: > > On Wed 24/Aug/2022 21:40:20 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: > > > I think “SHOULD do what the domain owner says” is too strong, and > > > propose to change it. By making it that strong we vary from the > > > policy that recipients use

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue: Domain Owner policy in Section 5

2022-08-26 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Thu 25/Aug/2022 19:43:49 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: Maybe this rewording works better?: Yes, it does! NEW-2 A Mail Receiver implementing the DMARC mechanism gets the Domain Owner’s or PSO's published DMARC Domain Owner Assessment Policy and uses it as an important factor in

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue: Domain Owner policy in Section 5

2022-08-25 Thread Barry Leiba
> On Wed 24/Aug/2022 21:40:20 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: > > > > I think “SHOULD do what the domain owner says” is too strong, and > > propose to change it. By making it that strong we vary from the > > policy that recipients use all the input they have to make their > > handling decision, and we

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue: Domain Owner policy in Section 5

2022-08-25 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Wed 24/Aug/2022 21:40:20 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: I think “SHOULD do what the domain owner says” is too strong, and propose to change it. By making it that strong we vary from the policy that recipients use all the input they have to make their handling decision, and we tell them that using

[dmarc-ietf] Issue: Domain Owner policy in Section 5

2022-08-24 Thread Barry Leiba
— Section 5 — A Mail Receiver implementing the DMARC mechanism SHOULD make a best- effort attempt to adhere to the Domain Owner's or PSO's published DMARC Domain Owner Assessment Policy when a message fails the DMARC test. Since email streams can be complicated (due to forwarding,