On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:45 PM Matt Vernhout via dmarc-discuss < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
> With some of my recent DMARC reports for my domains I've seen comments > about over riding the p=reject and deciding the mail should be quarantined > vs rejected because the recipient mailbox provider thought it was > forwarded. > > Would it be useful to add an additional DMARC be expanded to have a > 'p=nomail' value so when a domain that is already publishing "v=spf1 -all" > and has a 'p=reject' value that it really should be rejected regardless of > what the recipient domain thinks about a mail being forwarded or not? > > I see that this could also be valuable for parked domains, expired domains > and defensive domain registrations to provide additional levels of clarity > where a recipient network is trying to make the effort to deliver email but > due to their internal decision making are delivering mail that they > shouldn't be. > > ~ > *MATT* > I think it's worth discussing but at the end of the day, a policy statement in a DMARC record is a request to the validator/receiving domain, not a mandate. Local policy can always override such a request. If a domain doesn't send mail then there is no DKIM and the domain should publish a naked -all for SPF. The other cases you raise fall into John's "I really really mean it" category of additional extensions. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
