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

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

On 4/25/2023 9:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Scott Kitterman  <[e-mail]> said:
>> My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least
>> some traction out of both groups:
>>
>>> [some appropriate description] domains MUST NOT publish restrictive DMARC
>>> policies due to interoperability issues
> This seems like a reasonable approach. As a purely practical point, I
> cannot imagine this document getting through the IESG without some
> clear guidance about DMARC's interop issues.

+1

> PS: If anyone was going to suggest we just tell people how to change
> their mailing lists to work around DMARC, don't go there.

I don't follow.

A "no change" recommendation caused problems.  The current fix is:

1) "Rewrite From" to tear down restrictive DMARC security,
2) Prevent Subscription/Submission of restrictive DMARC domains.

#1 is undesirable. Empirical practice on a different internet has 
shown when following #2, for an existing list with members with 
restrictive domains, they will essentially become Read-Only List 
members because any submission/reply by them will be blocked.

-- 
Hector Santos,
https://santronics.com
https://winserver.com