In message <[email protected]>, Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> writes
>If you are not participating in DMARC, do not implement or read this >specification. I think that has been addressed >If you do want to implement DMARC, you do all the MUSTs >listed in this specification and there is no need to say that "if you >implement this RFC, you MUST do x". You may wish to publish a DMARC record and do nothing else. You may or may not wish to provide SPF records documenting your use of IPs -- when publishing a DMARC record. You may or may not wish to provide DKIM keys indicating how you sign email -- when you are publishing a DMARC record. You may wish to consider DMARC when assessing incoming email and do nothing else DMARC related. If you assess incoming email you may or may not wish to send reports about what you have learnt. Having published a DMARC record you may or may not wish to request that others put effort into sending you reports. >And I think those "participating in DMARC" words needs to be removed. >They are not needed. Everybody implementing things based on this >specification are "participating in DMARC", so we do not need to add >that to every single statement. In each case I set out, there will be a MUSTs to consider when configuring your system, but in the alternative you will ignore the MUST as inapplicable given your level of engagement. Hence the necessity for conditional statements throughout -- to keep the protocol police at bay. -- 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 _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
