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

[Matthäus Wander <[e-mail]>]

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote on 2023-04-09 09:50:
> Since one of the IETF's main goals in producing a technical 
> specification is interoperability, and since improperly deployed 
> "p=reject" results in the very essence of non-interoperability in the 
> deployed email base, I'm having trouble imagining why the standard 
> should leave operators with any choice here.  That is, in direct reply 
> to the cited definition of "SHOULD NOT", I claim there do not exist 
> valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior 
> is acceptable, even when the full implications are understood and the 
> case carefully weighed.

Earlier in the discussion, the term high-value domain has been used 
(along with transactional email domain) in opposition to domain for 
general-purpose email. The proposed text leaves it to the discretion of 
the domain owner to decide whether they have a general-purpose email 
domain or, say, a special-purpose business domain with a high need for 
protection from email spoofing. The risks are outlined, thus enabling 
the domain owner to weigh the implications, and the proposed text 
acknowledges that ...

 > ... the decision on which p= value to use will depend on its needs.

Isn't that having a choice?

Regards,
Matt