On August 30, 2014 7:26:19 PM EDT, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >>Does anyone who's implemented "fo" have a problem with both "0" and >"1" >>being specified? If it is somehow problematic, then the base spec >ought >>to say so. > >I don't understand what fo=1 is supposed to mean. If there's no SPF >record at all, are you supposed to generate a report? If there's no >DKIM signature at all, same question? Of if there are DKIM signatures, >but none of them have a d= that matches the From: address?
My reading of the draft says yes to all three. Scott K _______________________________________________ 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)
