On 2/1/21 3:21 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article <[email protected]> you write:
-=-=-=-=-=-
On 2/1/2021 10:08 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Mon 01/Feb/2021 17:38:07 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote:
Consider the challenges to ensuring a DMARC pass. That's a pretty
high barrier to entry against generating reports.
Well, if a mail site is unable to get a DMARC pass, they have more
urgent problems to solve than setting up aggregate report generation.
No, they probably don't have more urgent problems. Sites choose not to
adopt DMARC for a variety of reasons. It's probably a good idea to
respect that variety.
The model that a receiving site is not allowed to report DMARC traffic
unless that site is also generating DMARC authentication is
Procrustean. And as I noted, is likely counter-productive.
Ah, we have a semantic question. I consider a message with p=none to be
aligned.
This is why that paragraph needs to be made a (sub) section stating its
motivation and done in terms of what the requirements are on the sender
and the receiver of the report. It has nothing at all to with the DMARC
protocol. That's what I tried to clarify in #98.
Mike
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
