Re: DMARC and yahoo

[[e-mail]]

> On 4/21/2014 6:13 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > Sorry, I'm afraid I disagree. In fact I think it's exactly the opposite.
> > At a minimum we need to:
> >
> > (0) Document that the choice of a p=reject is inapproriate for anything
> >      but a domain devoted to business transaction email and fully describe the
> >      consequences of using such a policy on other sorts of domains.
> > (1) Document alternatives to labeling your mixed mode domain with p=reject.
> > (2) Describe the various mitigation strategies - and their consequences - for
> >      agents dealing with poor DMARC policy choices, including but not limited to
> >      advice to MLMs.


> There already is a first-round internet-draft formulated to be a BCP
> that could be a reasonable home for including such statements:

>       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-dmarc-bcp-03

Yes, that's the obvious place to put this material, rather than putting it
in the base specification. But then the base specification has to reference
this in a normative fashion.

Of course "formulated to be a BCP" doesn't imply actual publication as a BCP,
but even so there would be something a bit odd about having DMARC base as 
independent publication and the DMARC BCP as IETF work.

				Ned