Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

[Dotzero <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 11:38 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:45 PM Steven M Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> This puts me in mind of Section 8.5, which calls out some potential
>> impacts of blocking policies to "Mediators," which role doesn't otherwise
>> appear very often in this document. Is there any need to add Mediator
>> Actions/Considerations under section 5? Or does this belong in a separate
>> document?
>>
>
> We should probably review it and think about whether what it says is
> enough.
>

This is certainly worth a discussion.


> ISTR there were some vocal and visible mailing list operators that were
>> rejecting messages from domains that published "p=reject" policies, maybe
>> around 2014-15? I also thought they did this by checking the sending
>> domain's published policy in DNS, to your point about implementation.
>>
> This would be great [anec-]data to have.  Do you remember where you might
> have seen it?
>

My recollection is similar to Steve's except that I saw the talk but didn't
see the walking the walk.

> In any case, are we really going to start suggesting that list operators
>> start rejecting messages sent from domains that publish a blocking policy,
>> as official guidance? (Now I'm looking ever so forward to catching up on
>> these other threads - what the heck are people seeing out there??)
>>
>
> Well, this WG is chartered to come up with some kind of standards track
> solution to the problem.  I don't see one in DMARCbis at the moment.  Given
> how long this WG has existed so far, that's a fairly glaring omission.
> Doesn't seem to me this idea should be off the table just yet...
>

 I don't think it should be off the table but believe it is only one of the
options that MLMs/forwarders have.

Michael Hammer