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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On April 27, 2023 2:32:49 AM UTC, Jim Fenton <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On 26 Apr 2023, at 9:06, John Levine wrote:
>
>> It seems to me there are two somewhat different kinds of DMARC damange
>> that we might separate. One is what happens on discussion lists, where
>> messages get lost and in the process unrelated recipients get
>> unsubscribed. The other is simple forwarding and send-to-a-friend
>> which gets lost but is less likely to cause problems for the
>> recipients beyond not getting the mail they want.
>
>Isn’t (in the latter case) the recipients not getting the mail they want exactly an interoperability problem?

It absolutely is.  The difference, my view, is that if the domain owner has a policy that leads to you not getting your mail, it's a different level of severity than you both don't get your mail and end up unsubscribed from the mailing list.

One might make a case that the former is "works as designed" since the sending domain owner has published policy indicating he doesn't want you to get your mail and your mail host has decided to honor that request (I think that's wrong, but I can see the logic).  I don't think there's any way to claim third party's getting bounced from a mailing list is OK.

Scott K