On Feb 27, 2013, at 7:42 AM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > If the usage was authorized by the customers, it wasn't spoofing.
Agreed! > This isn't a minor nit-picking about wording. Using a label that has the > semantic of abuse, for an action that is entirely legitimate, continues to > confuse discussion about actual abuse. Considering the domain under discussion is using DMARC with a p=reject policy, we're left in a situation where the domain owner is clearly stating that unauthorized use of the domain is disallowed. Because PayPal is using the domain anyway, that puts them into the bucket of "abuser", their practice is "spoofing", and "actual abuse" is a subjective term. _______________________________________________ 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)
