The receiver acted as the DMARC policy told him to.
Correct. The problem is that the sender was (even though he didn't realize it) lying about his actual policy.
Exceptions to the rule needs to be carefully understood and remain as exceptions.
Correct. The sender should publish p=none to describe his actual policy. No exceptions needed, although given that this sort of sender confusion is not going away, a certain number of exceptions would likely limit the collateral damage.
In that case PayPal CAN know and correct the problem so they should and not the receiver.
Paypal didn't do anything wrong. Please, can we not have the "everyone in the world has to rewrite their mail systems so SPF can handle it" argument again?
R's, John _______________________________________________ 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)
