On September 1, 2014 12:50:04 PM EDT, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>I don't understand what fo=1 is supposed to mean. .. > >>> The ambiguity for me is between SPF or DKIM failed and no SPF or >DKIM >>> at all. As I read it, it probably means failure, but maybe it means >>> something else. >> >>I think for DMARC, SPF/DKIM failed/none are the same thing. > >For DMARC pass/fail, sure. For DMARC reporting, I dunno. > >Practically speaking, I would not find reports confirming that I had >no SPF at all very interesting. Remember that this is for messages >that passed DMARC anyway, so they must have had signatures. Ditto if >they say there was no signature, but the SPF was OK.
I agree most wouldn't find it interesting, but fo 0 is the default. If there is supposed to be a none/fail distinction for fo 1, then I think it needs to be explicitly called out. 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)
