On Saturday, July 07, 2012 12:21:03 AM Franck Martin wrote: > On 7/6/12 4:46 PM, "Scott Kitterman" <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Friday, July 06, 2012 11:28:17 PM Franck Martin wrote: > >> May be I can clarify > >> > >> SPF tests have to pass first on their own merit, so we are not changing > >> anything. It still applies to the Mail From envelope. What DMARC adds is > >> alignment between the domains in the mail from: and From: combined with > >> the DKIM pass and alignment we get if DMARC pass or not. > >> > >> So DMARC do use SPF. > > > >If you want to put it that way, then that makes it even clearer that > >DMARC is > >not a replacement for SPF policy. Call it what you want, just don't > >force > >people into choosing between the feedback mechanism in DMARC (which I > >really > >like) and existing policy mechanisms that might say something stronger. > > I understand SPF is doing rounds in IETF, you could suggest there a > feedback mechanism to the protocolŠ
There is one of those defined in RFC 5598, but it's new and doesn't have much in the way of deployment (there's a similar mechanism defined for DKIM). > We don't force anyone to adopt DMARC, we are even saying it is not for > everyone, but point taken to may be alert more if people have a current > spf -all or adsp and want to move to dmarc. It could be clearer that > p=none in that cases may change disposition. I think that's an unbelievably poor design choice, but now that you've clarified it, I've removed my DMARC record. Scott K _______________________________________________ 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)
