That's the point though, even if you don't send email from a domain it should
have a SPF and DMARC record to prevent someone from spoofing your domain.
If you have SPF -all and a null MX, you shouldn't need a DMARC record.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
-----Original Message-----
From: dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss-boun...@dmarc.org> On Behalf Of John Levine
via dmarc-discuss
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 2:25 PM
To: dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
Cc: ves...@tana.it
Subject: [Ext] Re: [dmarc-discuss] Some DMARC adoption data
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
It appears that Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss <ves...@tana.it> said:
Study on Domain Name System (DNS) abuse : technical report. Appendix 1,
2022
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/473317
Chapter 17 of the Appendix (2nd link above) contains data on SPF and DMARC.
The DMARC part says that 8,129,795 out of 246,425,997 domains exhibit a
DMARC record (3.3%). Parsing DMARC records shows that 49.68% of the
domain names with the DMARC record has p=none, 11.20% have
p=quarantine, and 37.14% have p=reject.
I wish they'd also looked at how many domains have MX records, or had SPF -all.
I can't get too worried about no DMARC on a domain that doesn't send or recieve
mail.
_______________________________________________
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)
