> -----Original Message----- > From: dmarc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker > Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 4:58 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jim Fenton's review of -04 > > On 12/29/2014 12:32 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > > I suppose it's ultimately another example of local policy. > > Depends on what that means. > > The rule within the protocol needs to be -- and is -- mechanical and > universal: In order to apply DMARC policy, you must first obtain an > authenticated (or, described more usefully, 'authorized') domain name that > is aligned with the From: field domain. > > A protocol that treats an initial, temporary error as producing a permanent > error is a pretty fragile protocol, in a networking environment. As such, > DMARC should at least strongly recommend retries, in the case of no passes > and at least one temp fail. >
The choices offered were tempfail and allow retry or don't apply DMARC policy. I was expressing a preference for tempfail which ultimately would degrade to a permfail after whatever number of retries the sending system has set. Mike _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
