Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposing an extension to DMARC to optionally require SPF and DKIM

["J. Gomez" <[e-mail]>]

On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:45 AM [GMT+1=CET], John Levine wrote:
> The sender can make any assertion it wants, but it better not assume
> that anyone is paying attention.  The more complicated the assertions,
> the less likely that receivers will think it's worth the effort to
> interpret them.

While true for non-standarized "things", it would be reasonably expected that if you make an assertion backed by a "official" standard, it should be accepted by others, at least, as "yeah you did make that assertion" and perhaps even as "yeah you did make that assertion and we believe you meant to assert it so we will follow through".

The point remains: in what form or shape Terry's optional DMARC extension hinders DMARC's goals?

After all, that "complication" will be dealt with by a code library, just painlessly.

Regards,

J. Gomez