Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD Privacy and Private Registries

[Emil Gustafsson <[e-mail]>]

That's what I'm thinking too. I think the key here is that it is not easy
for a mailbox provider to know if the privacy aspect is addressed in the
contract with their customer or not. Nor if the PSO demands all their
customers to have their own DMARC or not. I think that is what it boils
down to.

/E

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 5:08 AM Douglas Foster <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Recently, John observed that if a PSO publishes PSD=Y, it probably has a
> contract with member organizations.
>
> The privacy considerations are minimized by the contract, and it becomes
> unlikely that a member domain will not have an organization policy, so the
> PSD=Y clause will rarely be invoked.
>
> On the other hand, tree walk hopes that private registries will publish a
> PSD=Y policy.   The privacy considerations seem much more significant here,
> because the relationship between the private registry and its clients is
> likely to be loose and the affinity between clients is also likely to be
> loose.
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>