On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
And to the other conversations, we are talking about draft- here. And
that isn't the same as standard. In fact one of the requirements for
being granted standard would be to come up with answers to these
issues.
Standards status matters, but not as an absolute. The fact that the
text exists as an I-D also does not automatically impart importance or
utility, in terms of industry adopters.
Often it does, of course, but this doesn't seem to be one of those
cases, does it?
When people are making arguments of the form 'X is wrong because the
standard says so' then the fact that it isn't a standard *is* an
absolute.
Even if it was a standard, it wouldn't be scripture and even if it was
scripture it wouldn't necessarily be true. All these policy proposals
end up being nonsense because the people writing them always seem to
think that there is someone out there who can tell people what to do.
The only party who gets to decide what DMARC or any other policy
statement means is the receiver. Everyone else is just offering
evidence or advice. So p=reject does not and cannot mean 'MUST reject
messages that don't conform'. It can however mean 'there is a very
high probability that these messages are spam'.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/