On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:12 PM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> It appears that Todd Herr <[email protected]> said: > >p=none by default." This seems inconsistent with the text in 5.7.2 > >("Continue if one is found, or terminate DMARC evaluation otherwise") and > >4.7 ("Handling of DNS errors when querying for the DMARC policy record is > >left to the discretion of the Mail Receiver") neither of which describe a > >scenario where "No DMARC record found means DMARC record exists with a > >policy of p=none" I believe the phrase "causing recipients to assume > p=none > >by default" should be stricken from the bullet in 11.3. > > That sounds correct. If you get a timeout or a server failure, I wouldn't > assume that processing continues. > Right, and given Yahoo and Google's "No delivery without DMARC policy" edicts, I wouldn't expect them to fail open in this regard. -- *Todd Herr * | Technical Director, Standards & Ecosystem *e:* [email protected] *p:* 703-220-4153 *m:* 703.220.4153 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
