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

[Dotzero <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 4:25 PM John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:

> It appears that Dotzero  <[e-mail]> said:
> >While the you part of "we" may not see any advantages, quite a few
> >financials, greeting card sites, retailers AND many receivers have seen
> the
> >advantages, including p=reject. ...
>
> The advantages you see are certainly real but they're not about
> interoperability.
>
> DMARC prevents a lot of mail from being delivered, the exact opposite
> of interoperating. In your case at least, there are good reasons to
> believe that the recipients wouldn't have wanted the mail, but that's
> a separate question.
>

The vast majority of email messages emitted are prevented from being
delivered. Should the flood gates holding back those messages be opened in
the name of interoperability? My hunch is that this is not the desired
outcome by many/most people.

>
> I also think that you're kind of an edge case, with a mail stream that
> you can characterize very exactly and a clear understanding of the
> costs of the mail that gets lost.  People who know they have users
> on mailing lists and publish p=reject anyway, not so much.
>

DMARC was specifically created to address direct domain abuse with regard
to transactional mail. That hardly makes  financials, greeting card sites,
retailers AND many receivers edge cases.

>
> I'm with Scott, there's no question about the interop problem so
> document it and move on.
>

My response was orthogonal to any interop problems. Instead it was in
response to Laura claiming to speak on behalf of an all inclusive "we". It
may be that I was mistaken and it was instead an Imperial "we".

Michael Hammer