Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC editorial review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Sun 31/Mar/2024 22:33:10 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 9:32 AM Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Sun 31/Mar/2024 14:22:04 +0200 Douglas Foster wrote:
>>> On SPF, our document should say simply,
>>> " a DMARC-compliant evaluator MUST NOT reject a message, based on SPF result, 
>>> prior to receiving the Data section and checking for aligned and verifiable 
>>> signatures."
>>
>> Nonsense.  Rejecting at RCPT TO is much quicker than waiting for the whole 
>> message.  People who publish -all know what they do.
>
> Of course it is, but it prevents DKIM signatures from being tested, and 
> hence DMARC from being evaluated.  Maybe that's what you want, but maybe 
> it's not what everyone wants.


I agree there may be people who inadvertently set -all and would be better off 
changing it to ~all.  However, by claiming Best Practice, we'd be scaring those 
who want -all for good reasons.


>> I also reject based on RBLs and private IP lists; does that affect DMARC 
>> compliance?
> 
> I might argue that you can't possibly claim DMARC compliance if you're not 
> even getting far enough to execute its algorithm.


I'd say I comply /when/ I execute its algorithm.


Best
Ale
--