Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

[Douglas Foster <[e-mail]>]

My point was to only restate that "signed" is the only truth that the DMARC
policy can assert.    The new prose needs to fix the false certainty that
the old prose created.   But until this week, the group seemed ready to
repeat the same mistake and use language which perpetuates the myth that
FAIL always means fraud.   Maybe, but not certainly.   The difference is
important.

DF


On Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 8:46 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 7:51 PM Douglas Foster <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I would be happy with p=signed, because that is what p=reject means, and
>> it is our job is to ensure that people interpret the signal correctly.
>>
>
> Quoting the charter:
>
> "The working group will seek to preserve interoperability with the
> installed base of DMARC systems, and provide detailed justification for any
> non-interoperability."
>
> Changing one of the valid "p=" values seems to me to be the opposite of
> "preserve interoperability with the installed base", so the bar is high to
> make this change.
>
> Can the problem you're trying to address be handled in any other way?
> Say, improved informational prose?
>
> -MSK, participating
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>