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

[Todd Herr <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:15 AM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I'm very much against text such as this, as I think it encourages
> deployments that are contrary to interoperability and to the intent of
> p=reject.
>
> I contend that p=reject (as with the similar construct in the older ADSP)
> was intended for high-value domains and transactional mail, and that it was
> never intended for use in domains where general users send general email.
>
> I stand by the MUST NOT that I proposed.
>
>
I wonder if perhaps you might define "high-value domains" or restate your
position using a term other than "value" and its derivatives?

The reason I ask this is because your contention could perhaps be read as
"low-value domains MUST NOT use p=reject because their mail won't get to
its destination" and that seemingly ascribes a value to their mail that
might be considered somewhat higher than "low" in the eyes of some
beholders.


-- 

*Todd Herr * | Technical Director, Standards and Ecosystem
*e:* [e-mail]
*m:* 703.220.4153

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.