The same thing can be said for every step of email processing that comes before DMARC. If I reject your mail due to your IP being on a block list, you also don't get DMARC feedback about it.
It was long enough ago that I don't remember if it was RFC 7489 or early in this working group, but we did have extensive discussions about this before and that's how we got where we are. I don't think there's a lot of value in redoing that discussion. I think your N=5 versus N=8 topic is more important and much more on topic. Scott K On Saturday, April 6, 2024 1:27:18 PM EDT Seth Blank wrote: > 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
