A. Schulze wrote: > Am 13.05.2016 um 22:35 schrieb Terry Zink via dmarc-discuss: >> In Office 365 it would. Others' implementations may vary. > > "may or may not" - is that really the intention of DMARC?
That is how DMARC is specified, yes. Intention is a bit harder: - the ideal is that all implementations yield the same results, however - at the time DMARC was publicised it was acknowledged, explicitly, that implementations would be variable (in part because of their dependence upon various underlying implementations of SPF and DKIM, and even more variable integrations with those implementations) but that it was better that each participant made best use of the information that they had available given the limitations of their existing systems, rather than that a much lower bar was set for functionality by requiring uniform behaviour. It's worth bearing in mind the context in which DMARC came into being: a full decade (2003 SPF - 2013 DMARC) had gone into trying to solve the problem with little/no success. Part of the success of DMARC was that it took a more pragmatic approach, including tolerance of variable behaviour by receivers. - Roland _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org 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)
