We're mainly interested in the data for anti-phishing purposes - If they're
trying to phish us, they're likely trying to phish others too.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Terry Zink via dmarc-discuss <
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
> Could this be simplified further:
>
>
>
> a01.com IN TXT
Could this be simplified further:
a01.com IN TXT "v=spf1 -all"
_dmarc.a01.com IN TXT "v=DMARC1\; p=reject"
If the domain never sends email, I don’t particularly care to receive reports.
I guess the argument is that it may be interesting to see who is sending email
as this parked domain.
>> Does it make sense to publish a DMARC record to signal that a host
>> should never send email? Can said record be published without an
>> accompanying DKIM record?
>
>See
>http://www.m3aawg.org/documents/en/m3aawg-protecting-parked-domains-best-common-practices
Quite right. While you're at
Mitchell Kuch via dmarc-discuss:
Does it make sense to publish a DMARC record to signal that a host
should never send email? Can said record be published without an
accompanying DKIM record?
See
http://www.m3aawg.org/documents/en/m3aawg-protecting-parked-domains-best-common-practices
Yes, mainly for brand/domain protection. We see spammers co-opt domains all
the time that are widely recognized but not normally used for mail. I've
told people in the past to do this for domains that they own that should
never send mail, especially lookalike or spoof domains that you own for
