Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On April 9, 2023 6:33:54 PM UTC, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> As Todd previously stated, my preference is for language that
>> acknowledges the primacy of the domain owner over interoperability
>
>The problem is that IETF standards are about interoperability, not about
>anyone’s primacy.
>
>There is an alternative, though: we can acknowledge that because of how
>those deploying DMARC view their needs over interoperability, DMARC is not
>appropriate as an IETF standard, and we abandon the effort to make it
>Proposed Standard.
>
>I see that as the only way forward if we cannot address the damage that
>improperly deployed DMARC policies do to mailing lists.
>
I think this is a reasonable conclusion.

I think we either need to take a strong stand on interoperability or come up with another plan.

If we decide to punt on interoperability, we might document the interoperability mess in an appendix, make it experimental, and then wait for then wait for the market to decide.

I'd prefer we don't do that, but avoiding a result like that is going to take some compromise.

I suspect there's a path forward built around domains which [conditions] MUST NOT p=reject because interoperability, but no one is likely to be entirely happy with the results (and that's fine, IETF rough consensus is about "I can live with it", not "I like it").

Scott K