> But (by default) overriding a p=none to something stronger is punishing those > who at least have heard of DMARC in favor of not publishing a record at all, > and thus not gathering enough data to be able to get to reject or quarantine. > It can take a long time to get beyond p=none depending on internal > priorities, politics, size of problem to begin with… if I had thought there > was any reasonable expectation of having my p=none get overridden by default > (especially as they don’t seem to be sending any reports?) I wouldn’t have > been able to start on this path at all. If I may add a consideration, I don't see me setting a reject policy anytime soon (must as I'd like to) because as much as 15% of our emails get forwarded and on average maybe half of those pass DMARC. We simply can't afford to lose that many emails, and certainly can't afford to educate every recipient that actually takes the time to contact us saying they didn't receive the email, and good luck explaining that it isn't our "fault".
(apologies if this is a rookie point) _______________________________________________ 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)
