Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy overrides

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 7/2/2013 1:42 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> It seems to me that prose which spells this out, including the costs of
> the "override" (namely processing through to the end of DATA), is
> potentially a fine compromise.

Since the horse is possible still having some spasms, whether alive or 
not, I'll beat it some more:  My comments are about language, not 
technical details.  My concern is that the language many folk are using 
can lead to misunderstanding what is inside or outside the spec.


> I also think it's necessary to consider some current realities.  In an
> architecture such as the one I use, filters operate serially on the
> data.  The SPF module runs ahead of DKIM, which in turn runs ahead of
> DMARC.  If the SPF module decides to act on a "-all" and reject the
> message, DMARC and DKIM simply can't happen.  DMARC, by saying SHOULD
> over SPF, is attempting to require that the SPF module change what it's
> doing.  That means, at least in my local example, that DMARC is not a
> pure overlay atop SPF and DKIM.

Right. It's not.

As for DMARC 'replacing' some SPF portions, yeah, it's doing that.

If someone thinks the text is not sufficiently clear about what is 
specified to do or why, we know how to fix that.  As for /whether/ to do 
it, again, one can choose to live within DMARC or...

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net