Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

[Jesse Thompson <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:52 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 
> 
> On April 28, 2023 2:25:57 AM UTC, Jesse Thompson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:30 AM, Brotman, Alex wrote:
> >> Attempt to make it a tad more concise (I think), altering some of the language:
> >> 
> >> ---------------------
> >> There can be inherent damage to the ability to use certain SMTP-based systems in conjunction with a policy of quarantine or reject.  These could include, though are not limited to, mailing lists, forwarding services, and other types of indirect mail flows.  Especially in situations where the sending domain is SPF-only, or the intermediary is known to alter messages.  If the users of the domain may utilize these types of systems, the domain administrator MUST NOT deploy a policy of quarantine or reject without serious considerations to the impact to interoperability.  These considerations will be informed by careful analysis of DMARC aggregate reports prior to deploying such a policy.  Some third-party systems may be willing to create a workaround for these situations, though it cannot be guaranteed.  Domain owners MAY choose to create a sub-domain (listmail.example.org) or cousin domain (listmail-example.org) which uses a different policy for users wishing to utilize those service
> s.
> >> ---------------------
> >
> >I like this, and it gives room for best common practices to evolve that don't necessarily conflict.
> >
> >s/
> >    Especially in situations where the sending domain is SPF-only, or the intermediary is known to alter messages.  If the users of the domain may utilize these types of systems, the domain administrator MUST NOT deploy
> >/
> >    For situations where the sending domain is not DKIM signing all of its traffic in an aligned fashion or there is legitimate use of an intermediary known to alter messages, the domain administrator MUST NOT deploy
> >/x
> 
> I think most of this would be good in a non-normative appendix.  For my immediate purpose, I'm imagining that in addition to the [adjective] domain, there would need to be an amplification of [adjective] that would explain exactly what we mean by [adjective] and what actions a domain owner might take in order to be [not adjective].
> 
> I don't think it's formally part of the protocol, but it's quite important.

+1