I realize that receivers will do whatever it is they want to do.
However, I think it is important for domain owner to be able to assert
how they intend the data to be used and to be able to disavow other
uses of the data.
That is not what you are proposing here, you are proposing that
THIS GROUP disavow particular checks that you disagree with.
How many domain owners are going to feel comfortable publish MARID
records, knowing that the information will be used to accept or
reject their email, and yet give people free reign to do whatever they
want with the data?
Well that is what is going to happen. So why pretend otherwise?
When you are trying to resolve email deliverability problems, it is
really useful for the domain owner to point to an RFC and say "you
should be rejecting my email just because the References: header has a
domain in it that fails MARID validation". Maybe the email receiver
will change, maybe they won't, but they can't use open-ended
interpretations of MARID data as a valid reason.
If you want the MARID advice to stick it had better be honest.
If MARID gives dishonest advice it will deserve to be ignored.
This comes back to the subject of publishers specifying the
identities. If, from reading Andy's "toward a compromise" post, we
are going to be selecting algorithms, I think it is very important for
domain owners to either be able to select the identities, or maybe
better, to select the algorithms that they want the MARID data to be
This does not work. The domain owner can't select the algorithm,
only the receiver can decide what checks they are going to apply.
they won't know what the policy is until they check the domain
name in an identity.