On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 2:55 PM Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:15 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> +1. The rationale, AIUI, is that if the receiver successfully evaluated >> alignment, then "pass" is fine. If the receiver didn't evaluate anything >> after >> it saw p=none, then "none" is fine. <dkim> and <spf> should agree. >> > > If a receiver does not check alignment, then "none" would be the right > report, regardless of DMARC policy in the DNS record. (One could argue for " > ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" instead of none, but I don't know how interoperable that would > be) > As an individual, I don't know of any receiver that checks DMARC, but then doesn't check alignment if the policy is none. Is that above actually a real world use case that is understood? Perhaps this isn't clear because of the use of "none" as a status in the first place... > > If DMARC is fully evaluated, including alignment, then "pass" would be > better. > > --Kurt > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > -- *Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies *e:* [email protected] *p:* 415.273.8818 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
