On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 8:01 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:50 PM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 9/29/2020 3:08 PM, Seth Blank wrote: >> > I don't know of any receiver that checks DMARC, but then doesn't check >> > alignment >> >> It's not a matter of field statistics: >> >> Since checking alignment is an obvious part of the DMARC >> procedure, if someone does not follow the specification, they are not >> doing DMARC. >> > > Does that mean that "none" is not an appropriate verdict? > No, per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#appendix-C "none" is the only option for when a policy action is not undertaken: <!-- The policy actions specified by p and sp in the DMARC record. --> <xs:simpleType name="DispositionType"> <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> <xs:enumeration value="none"/> <xs:enumeration value="quarantine"/> <xs:enumeration value="reject"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> The point of this thread, and where consensus appears to lie, is adding another value to disambiguate the use cases. > --Kurt > -- *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
