On 7/6/12 7:55 AM, "Chris Lamont Mankowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The use case that I'm trying to address is when a sender is sending to >DMARC enabled receiving MTAs and also to non-DMARC enabled MTAs. My >understanding is that SPF ~all and -all (as well as ADSP) are >currently not stringently adhered to by receiving MTAs. Those >directives may only end up being a weight in the grand scheme of >things. > >The use case is when the sender is in this co-existence mode and also >wants to have a DMARC policy for MTAs that can handle it. > >This assumes that the final disposition of the message in DMARC >processing is different that SPF (which is more heuristic based) > Right, I think between your comments and Scott's that we should revisit the cited text. Your premises above are correct, namely that many sites that check SPF and/or ADSP don't actually enforce bounce requests from those protocols for fear of false negatives. But in the opposite case, where one of them insists on a bounce but DMARC insists on lighter action, I'm not sure DMARC should be an absolute override. We may as well assume that all senders are in co-existence mode, since it's very likely that only a subset of the receivers will actually be DMARC participants. -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)
