Hi,
in this specific case I was just testing our mail server with all
possible DMARC settings and I always tried the same test case on gmail
to see how they handle that.
I actually used "p=reject sp=none" on one domain for a while. The
problem was I managed mail server for the main domain but I didnt have
access to any of the subdomains. It took some time to find out which
subdomains are used for sending emails and create their own p=none DMARC
policies.
Regards
Petr
Dne 12.12.2016 v 7:47 Roland Turner napsal(a):
Actually, this is a good point: setting aside any apparent inconsistency
between the language of the specification and the response of gmail,
it's not at all clear why "p=reject sp=none" would ever be a good idea.
There may be specific cases where it may make sense to carve out a
single sub-domain with a weaker policy for specific, closely-monitored
purposes, but this would seem better addressed by creating a policy
specific to that subdomain, rather than publishing a blanket policy
which effectively says "You can't impersonate our domain, but create any
subdomain you like and impersonate your heart out!".
Can anyone see any good reason to use a policy like this?
Petr, can you describe what you were trying to achieve?
(I'm not advocating a specification change, just surveying likely use
cases.)
- Roland
_______________________________________________
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)
