In article <CAPyMsDiy+k14BJBG-_D=aoy9o3mw4-uoyo9dh_c3ulpmwnb...@mail.gmail.com> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >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?
We already have SPF "v=spf1 -all" to say that a domain sends no mail, and MX 0 . to say that it receives no mail. In general it's not a great idea to invent multiple ways to say the same thing, or to look at it another way, if recipients aren't taking the hint from SPF, why do we think they'd pay attention to a similar hint from DMARC? R's, John _______________________________________________ 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)
