It appears that Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> said: >On Thu 06/Jan/2022 12:32:17 +0100 Douglas Foster wrote: >> The point of a specification like this is to understand each >> participant's best interest and channel that toward the common goal. >> I perceive a false assumption that when a sender does not publish >> p=reject, then his messages cannot be blocked for failure to validate, >> and therefore DKIM signatures are unnecessary. > >Or we could devise a protocol whereby a sender can supply customized policies >to different (kinds of) receivers.
But that wouldn't be DMARC, so please, let's stop. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
