Scott, I disagree. SPF hardfail in a DMARC context is an operational issue that comes up with some frequency for domain owners.
We should have some minimal amount of clarifying text. S, individually Seth Blank | Chief Technology Officer Email: [email protected] 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. On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 13:01 Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, April 1, 2024 4:45:20 PM EDT Todd Herr wrote: > > Greetings. > > > > Issue 141 has been opened to collect ideas around the discussion about > what > > to say in DMARCbis (if anything) about honoring SPF records that end in > > -all when SPF fails. > > > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues/141 > > I don't really understand the need for this. What to do when SPF produces > a > fail result is an SPF question. Not a DMARC question. Additionally, we > have > discussed this before. Note that not even RFC 7208 tells receivers what > to do > with SPF fail. It seems far, far out of scope to do so here. > > On the theory that the invocation not to relitigate things we've already > gone > through won't be honored entirely in the breach, can we not do this? > > Scott K > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
