On 12/29/2014 12:32 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dmarc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman >> [...] >> I think the only two reasonable choices are defer and see what happens on >> retry or to treat it as DMARC none and press on with other checks. >> > I suppose it's ultimately another example of local policy. I feel like a > DMARC "none" opens the door to abuse (I'm thinking of abused financials for > example). How easily can an abuser induce temporary failures for DNS for a > given host/domain? I'd prefer a recommendation of "defer and retry" rather > than a fail open (DMARC none).
Is this a point where the phrase "documenting existing common practice" should guide us? That sounded a lot like recommending a practice versus documenting... --S. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
