There is a misnomer here. In the context of DMARC, SPF fail means, (SPF was not pass) or (SPF was pass and was not aligned).
We should have called it DMARC-SPF, or something else, but not SPF. So don't get confused. On Mar 26, 2013, at 8:34 PM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ok, so where in the DMARC draft specification is it stated that SPF-absence >> equals a result of >> DMARC-fail for the SPF-mechanism? >> >> Also, I find it troubling that DMARC leverages SPF and at the same time >> changes the >> RFC-sanctioned SPF semantics (i.e., the old SPF-neutral now becomes SPF-fail >> for DMARC). > > The only situation in that would be an issue is if a domain went to > the effort of publishing a DMARC record, but did not publish an SPF > record. > > As the old saying goes, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." > > "So don't do that." > > 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
