On 4/21/2014 6:13 PM, ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
Sorry, I'm afraid I disagree. In fact I think it's exactly the opposite.
At a minimum we need to:
(0) Document that the choice of a p=reject is inapproriate for anything
but a domain devoted to business transaction email and fully describe the
consequences of using such a policy on other sorts of domains.
(1) Document alternatives to labeling your mixed mode domain with p=reject.
(2) Describe the various mitigation strategies - and their consequences - for
agents dealing with poor DMARC policy choices, including but not limited to
advice to MLMs.
There already is a first-round internet-draft formulated to be a BCP
that could be a reasonable home for including such statements:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-dmarc-bcp-03
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net