It appears that Barry Leiba <[email protected]> said: >Yes, I thought about that too: just omit psd rather than explicit >psd=u. Is there a reason not to do that? What's the value of >explicit psd=u, as long as the spec says what absent psd means?
I don't think there is any other place where the default is not one of the explicit options. The benefit of psd=u, such as it might be, is to make it more consistent, and to be clear that we really mean it when we say that psd=y, psd=n. and psd=u mean three different things. This is not a big deal but I do think I've seen confusion, e.g., people wrongly concluding that all existing DMARC records will have to have psd=n added. (I suppose those people will now demand psd=u, so you can't win.) R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
