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

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Thu 27/Apr/2023 16:30:14 +0200 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 services.
> ---------------------


I like this kind of text.  I'd still s/MUST NOT/must not/.  Also, state that 
serious consideration includes testing p=quarantine; pct=0^H t=y.


Best
Ale
--