Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On April 14, 2023 1:29:58 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 4:31 AM Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Heck, MLMs should start rejecting messages sent from domains that publish
>> a
>> blocking policy *when they fail authentication on entry*!!
>>
>
>That's not enough to avoid the damage we're talking about.
>
>
>> From: rewriting is the de-facto standard.  In DMARCbis we can only
>> substitute
>> "de-facto" with "proposed".  Better methods, implying different, possibly
>> experimental, protocols are to be defined in separate documents.
>>
>
>Are you suggesting we put that forward as our Proposed Standard way of
>dealing with this problem?  It's been my impression that this is not a
>solution that's been well received.
>
>
>> Let me recall that when I proposed something like that, I was told that
>> that
>> was phase II and the WG was then already in phase III.  So, let's complete
>> DMARCbis /without cannibalizing the spec/ by saying that it MUST NOT be
>> used
>> (as it is being used already).
>>
>
>What you describe as "cannibalizing" is actually a matter of presenting the
>correct normative advice about interoperability.  So I don't agree at all
>with that characterization.

Agreed.  If people can't get over saying some domains will have interoperability problems when that's demonstrably a technically accurate statement (and I don't see anyone claiming it isn't), I don't see how progress is possible.

Scott K