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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On March 28, 2023 8:20:54 PM UTC, Todd Herr <todd.herr=[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 4:01 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> "...MUST NOT deploy a DMARC policy other than p=none because use of
>> p=reject
>> or (to a slightly lesser extent) p=quarantine for such domains is
>> extremely
>> harmful to email interoperability.  Mitigation strategies are discussed in
>> [RFC 7960] and [RFC 8617]."
>>
>> I don't think we need to reiterate what p=reject does here, that's
>> extensively
>> addressed elsewhere in the document.  I don't think we have enough data to
>> opine either way about the effectiveness of such strategies, so it's
>> enough to
>> point at them here.  We don't currently list RFC 8617 as a reference.  I
>> think
>> introducing an informative reference here is useful.  It's experimental,
>> so we
>> definitely don't want to put any normative language around it.
>>
>> I suspect that's probably not what you would find ideal (it's not what I
>> would
>> find ideal either, but I can live with it).  Can you live with it?  What
>> do
>> others think?
>>
>>
>In my estimation, the language you propose here establishes the primacy of
>interoperability over the needs/wishes of the domain owner.
>
>My preference is for language that acknowledges the primacy of the domain
>owner over interoperability.
>
>I don't have time tonight to propose alternative text, but I wanted to
>acknowledge that I've read your message and make a promise to propose
>alternative text tomorrow.

Yes, but that's what RFCs are for.  Thanks for replying.

Scott K