-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In message <[email protected]
1.prod.outlook.com>, Brotman, Alex <[email protected]
f.org> writes
>+1 SHOULD NOT
If there is not going to be a consensus for just a discussion of the
issue (which I would prefer) then my view, obviously is that SHOULD NOT
is to be preferred to MUST NOT
The relevant bit of Barry's text is I believe:
It is therefore critical that domains that host users who might
post messages to mailing lists SHOULD NOT publish p=reject.
Domains that choose to publish p=reject SHOULD implement
policies that their users not post to Internet mailing lists.
but I am concerned about the second sentence.
It would be perfectly possible at $DAYJOB$ (where I help look after a
number of domains with p=reject and a large number of users) to meet
that SHOULD by blocking those users from sending to mailing lists. This
would (a) be somewhat unpopular and (b) for many mailing lists which
have implemented workarounds of various kinds completely unnecessary.
So might I suggest a wording that captures what will actually happen in
the real world
Domains that choose to publish p=reject SHOULD inform the people
using those domains of the issues that may arise if theu post to
Internet mailing lists.
I'd even live with a MUST for that second sentence :-)
- --
richard Richard Clayton
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
iQA/AwUBZTkxF92nQQHFxEViEQK63QCgyXe3+giXO9UlDA9jAC2T4E6kGeQAn3NC
WoNnAF7y6HrECK9Y1kcdE1nd
=iSip
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
