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

[John Levine <[e-mail]>]

It appears that Scott Kitterman  <[e-mail]> said:
>We could do I think any of the following and they are roughly semantically 
>equivalent:
>
>[general purpose]* domains MUST NOT publish p=reject to preserve 
>interoperability
>
>to preserve interoperability, domains SHOULD NOT publish p=reject unless they 
>are [not general purpose]* domains
>
>which could be accompanied by:
>
>[not general purpose]* domains SHOULD determine their email authentication 
>deployment is accurate and complete before publishing restrictive policies 
>(p=quarntine or p=reject) to avoid interoperability issues.
>
>Publishing DMARC records with restrictive policies does cause interoperability 
>problems for some normal email usage patterns.  Potential impacts MUST be 
>considered before any domain publishes a restrictive policy.
>
>* whatever the right formulation is, that's a related, but distinct (and I 
>think less controversial question).

I'm OK with any of these.

I do think it's important to make it clear that you lose interopn when
you publish a policy on a domain that's sending more than transactions
or spam.

R's,
John