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

[Dotzero <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 5:10 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Possible.  I didn't count.
>
> I didn't see any convergence towards an alternative.
>

The fact that there hasn't been convergence on an alternative doesn't mean
there has been convergence on the proposed new txt. This also doesn't mean
the proposed new text becomes the default in the event of a lack of
consensus. If anything were to be considered the default in the event of
lack of consensus it would most logically be the original text.


>
> I think adding explicitly that the MUST is related to interoperability
> reasonably addresses the concern that there are non-interoperability
> reasons people are going to publish p=reject despite the side effects.
>

I don't read it that way. We clearly see interoperability even with domains
such as AOL, Yahoo and other similar domains publishing p=reject. I
recognize there are issues but I'm not comfortable that they rise to the
level of a failure to interoperate. I'm also not comfortable publishing
"MUST NOT" for p=reject when we know that domains representing a very large
number of sending users are. To me that smacks of virtue signaling and a
failure to address a difficult problem space because, "you know". This is
why I am more comfortable with "should not". It recognizes the problems but
doesn't pretend they are going away because of a demand to conform that the
promulgators of the standard recognize won't be listened to.

>
> I don't see a stronger consensus for a specific alternative.
>
> I think we have exhausted the discussion on the topic, so, whatever the
> resolution, I'd like to see the chairs drive the question to closure.  It's
> pretty clear it's not going to naturally drift into a universal consensus.
>
> Michael Hammer
>