On 7/6/12 7:09 AM, "Scott Kitterman" <[email protected]> wrote: >I confess I hadn't noticed this in the spec before. I don't think it >makes >any sense. If you don't want mail rejected due to SPF fail or an ADSP >discardable result, why would you ever publish DNS records that might >suggest >that? > >I think it's out of scope for DMARC to try and impose these kinds of >requirements. Personally, I publish (and have for years) SPF -all >records and >don't have any problems with them. I published a DMARC record to get >the >associated feedback information. That by no means was meant to indicate >that >I wanted receivers to deal with SPF differently on it's own. > >This is particularly relevant to SPF because virtually all the 'bad' >feedback >I'm getting in my DMARC reports is about email lists. In the case of >email >lists, my SPF record doesn't even enter into it because mailing lists use >their own. > >Receivers that don't want mail rejected due to ADSP or SPF should deal >with >that in the appropriate DNS records. I think it would be appropriate for >the >spec to point that out, but not to try and impose such limits on >recievers.
There's also the case where the Domain Owner publishes a ~all policy but a DMARC p=reject. I think we're pretty sure we want DMARC's policy assertion to prevail in this case, as it's a more comprehensive check. -MSK > _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
