Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy overrides

[Franck Martin <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 2, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
 wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 01:59:15 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
>> 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...
> 
> Ah, so DMARC is what it's defined as, so by definition any suggestion that it 
> should be changed is incorrect.  Got it.  Glad we cleared that up.
> 

Scott,

There are more than 20 people that developed this spec, we reached consensus on this is the best path and we deployed it and we have not seen it should be done otherwise. Any suggestion that it should be changed is not incorrect, it needs more support than the 20 people or so behind it... 

As Barry said, review the current spec, build support and the spec will be changed.

It seems I'm flogging a dead horse here.