Please be sure to read RFC7601 while deciding, as it sets out the rules for the registries related to Authentication-Results and what's appropriate to put in them.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Kouji Okada <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark > > Thank you for your comment. > > The authors are now discussing which > authentication-method or authentication-code is suitable > to be marked in the authentication-results. > > > Trying to guess where to send (unasked for) reports is guaranteed to end > with poor outcomes. > > I totally agree. > > Best regards, > Kouji Okada > > > 2017/03/28 22:26、[email protected]のメール: > > > > On 3/25/2017 12:45 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> For SPF, we had "best guess" [1], which we chose not to standardize at > all > >> because we didn't think it appropriate to break the opt-in nature of > SPF. > >> This concerns me a bit here, but I'm mostly writing to support the idea > of > >> distinguishing between some kind of guess and an actual DMARC result. > >> > >> I think "dmarc=bestguesspass" is far superior to "dmarc=pass", since > this is > >> not a DMARC pass. I think "dmarcguess=pass" would be better since this > isn't > >> properly a DMARC check at all. > >> > >> Scott k > > > > I absolutely agree with Scott on this. "bestguesspass" is NOT DMARC. It > is local policy applied in a DMARC like manner. > > > > This is also why there is no legitimate place to send reports. The > sender did not publish a DMARC record and did not ask for reports. Trying > to guess where to send (unasked for) reports is guaranteed to end with poor > outcomes. > > > > Mike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dmarc mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
