This thread says theoretically yes, but I have said that practically no, because so far the people that have or are implementing DMARC on the receiving side do not reject email based on SPF -all AFAIK.
So the DMARC FAQ is correct ;) And the spec is not a moving target, it just gets better and better, removing some places where there could be confusion. On 7/7/12 11:43 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >The DMARC FAQ is apparently inaccurate based on this very thread, and >doesn't include answers to questions I have below. > >Example: Does p=none alter mailflow? The FAQ says No. This thread says >yes in some cases. > >I don't know what to trust. The specification is a moving target I can't >implement. > >It took me a while to figure out the stakeholders who are vocal on this >list versus other contributors. Even more confusion not apparent on the >FAQ. > >Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > >-----Original Message----- >From: Franck Martin <[email protected]> >Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 06:19:43 >To: <[email protected]><[email protected]> >Cc: Michael Adkins<[email protected]>; >[email protected]<[email protected]>; >Alan Maitland<[email protected]>; >[email protected]<[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Clarification needed; Does p=none override >-all > and ADSP in all cases? > >Like the DMARC FAQ? > >Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question. > _______________________________________________ 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)
