On 12/30/20 7:31 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 8:56 AM Michael Thomas <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 12/30/20 5:48 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 4:42 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Tue 29/Dec/2020 22:02:20 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 12/29/20 12:47 PM, Todd Herr wrote:
>>> Unless those values in parens are a MUST requirement, the
dmarc=fail is
>>> highly misleading.
I agree with Michael here. When a (trusted) dmarc=fail is
seen downstream, its consumers neither know what policy was
specified nor whether it was honored.
That depends on your definition of "downstream", I guess.
MDAs and local clients (web and mobile) at the mailbox provider
will have the information they need.
No they don't. I keep saying this, but you guys keep dismissing
me. Painting up "fail" for p=none is absolutely the wrong thing to
do. It is not what the user expects to see for a piece of mail
that is perfectly acceptable to the originating domain. This is an
error or omission, full stop.
I'm sorry, but I don't know that I've seen an example of painting up
"fail" for p=none in my Gmail or Google Apps clients; it is possible
you can share a screencap of an example of what you're referring to
here, please?
I already said there is a thunderbird extension called dkim-verify that
does exactly that. It says "DMARC: fail". That is highly misleading to
the user.
Mike
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
