Speaking only as a participant: On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 8:29 AM Al Iverson <aiverson= 40wombatmail....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 10:06 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 7:30 AM Todd Herr <todd= >> 40someguyinva....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >>> I posit that a world with unsigned messages being rejected is indeed >>> possible. Major mailbox providers have been saber rattling about "No auth, >>> no entry" for quite some time, and the current Yahoo/Google requirements >>> that at least some senders publish a DMARC record (among other things) in >>> order to get mail considered for acceptance are a step in that direction. >>> >> >> I agree that such a world is possible -- I mean, anything is possible -- >> but I would really like such a change to come from below rather than above. >> > > Meaning that it should be a mailbox provider policy-driven thing, as > opposed to being directive embedded in the DKIM2 spec? If so, I think I > agree. > > I honestly do want "no auth, no entry" but I approach it through > deliverability eyes of "my server, my rules" for inbound mail processing. I > want to enable choice, not demand the only path. > When I say "from below", I'm talking about a solution that comes from collaborative engineering that's as dispassionate about the business goals as is practical. Deployment of broad use of DMARC's "p=reject" before we'd come up with something better was a business decision, not an engineering one. I basically don't want the industry or the IETF to repeat the path that DMARC followed. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
