hmm, so this is the spam system being stricter than our regular dmarc evaluation, mixing with our recent attempts to map spam reasons to more understandable errors. I'm not sure if the spam system means to ignore the sub-domain policy in this case, I'll file a bug.
Brandon On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:21 PM, John Levine via dmarc-discuss < [email protected]> wrote: > In article <HE1PR0202MB25859D980340329DEE84D978E6870@HE1PR0202MB2585. > eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> you write: > >-=-=-=-=-=- > >-=-=-=-=-=- > > > >John Levine wrote: > > > >> This would be a good time to reread RFC 7489, particularly section > >> 6.6.3, and very particularly numbered item 3 in that section. > > > >This is simply the DNS record discovery mechanism. It doesn't explain the > apparent overriding of the behaviour of > >the sub-domain policy specified in the record discovered via that > mechanism. > > Hmmn. I wonder if anyone ever tested sp=none. More typically you > don't expect your subdomains to be sending mail so it's sp=reject. > > R's, > John > _______________________________________________ > 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) >
_______________________________________________ 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)
