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

[Jesse Thompson <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:54 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 
> 
> On April 28, 2023 2:49:48 AM UTC, Jesse Thompson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:40 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 10:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> >>> Also, state that serious consideration includes testing p=quarantine; pct=0^H t=y.
> >> 
> >> I was going to say something similar but I think that it is implied by section A.7
> >
> >Actually, I like referencing A.7 here as a pointer.
> >
> >This achieves consensus on the rewrite objection. 
> >
> >A.7 describes the rewrite without condoning it:
> >
> >   Operational experience showed ...
> >   ... header rewriting by an
> >   intermediary meant that a Domain Owner's aggregate reports could
> >   reveal to the Domain Owner how much of its traffic was routing
> >   through intermediaries that don't rewrite the RFC5322.From header
> 
> I think we can describe what people are doing without placing a strong value judgement on it, but I think we have to say we haven't assessed all the associated interoperability impacts of it and at least mention that 5321 says not to do it.

Restricting the "MUST NOT" to the context of 5321 achieves consensus, I think

Jesse