On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:46:42 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > The draft strongly encourages DMARC implementers to ignore SPF policy, so > > I don't think assuming messages will be deferred due only due to SPF or > > DKIM results indicating a temporary DNS error is appropriate. > > If there's a transient DNS error getting the SPF policy, then there's no > SPF policy to be ignored. That's quite a different situation. > > > I think that in the case of a temporary DNS error in one of the lower > > level protocols, insufficient inputs are available to conclude a message > > has failed DMARC tests. > > I agree. > > > Receivers can either ignore DMARC for this message due to incomplete > > evaluation or they can defer the message in the hope that the temporary > > error will be resolved when the message is retried. Receivers MUST NOT > > apply DMARC policy and reject or quarantine because the DMARC evaluation > > is > > incomplete. > > Can you provide specific changes, with section numbers, that you'd like to > see applied to resolve this?
Yes, but I just finished a 20 hour drive, so I'll probably sleep first. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
