[Response Inline]
On 02/20/2014 02:20 AM, Tim Draegen wrote:
I understand from your response that the receiver giving a reason "forwarder"
is kind of like a special case which they want to handle correctly. Although, I wish
DMARC provided some way of saying, no special cases. After all, senders do get a failure
message when the email gets rejected at the SMTP layer due to DMARC.
I'm not sure such a DMARC-based flag would be useful. The DMARC
social-contract is that receivers provide data back to domain owners, and
domain owners use that data to inform their authentication practices.
Receivers can then freely apply DMARC policies with the understanding that
support costs can be pushed back to domain owners.
There are circumstances where email flows beyond the control of both receivers AND domain
owners, and for those circumstances the "reason"/override is in place to let
domain owners know why their policies were not applied.
Against that backdrop, a policy like "p=reject-no-special-cases" isn't useful...
"p=reject" does the same thing.
You have a valid point here. I now understand why the receiver gives a
reason "forwarder" and accepts the emails. I just hope its not exploited
to get around DMARC controls.
And, thanks for the detailed response, Tim. It was very helpful.
Regards,
-Ashok.
Take care,
=- Tim
_______________________________________________
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)
