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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On April 26, 2023 1:47:14 AM UTC, Hector Santos <hsantos=[e-mail]> wrote:
>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,

I think we all understand that there are things mailing lists can do to mitigate the interoperability impacts of DMARC.  I don't think it's germane to the current question.  Please, let's stay focused.

Scott K