In article <3457203.qin9KRflZP@sk-desktop> you write: >> Should we make it invalid to have p=none without a reporting address? > >I'll bite: > >No. > >This is unrelated to interoperability and unlikely to actually improve >anything (this reminds me of the occasional suggestions to make v=spf1 +all >special for SPF records).
Agreed. If we want to create a profile so people can give themselves a DMARC gold star, we can do that, but let's not mess up the spec. Also, I can imagine situations where a plain p=none makese sense, for some tiny domain that sends out two robotic notifications a week or the like. It too little to be worth instrumenting. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
