Hector,
I think Levin's original suggestion to use the setting option like SPF
AND DKIM, SPF OR DKIM, SPF only, DKIM only is excellent. It could solve
a lot of problems. System administrators know best how to set up their
system and for what purposes they need that setting. I can imagine a
> If the DMARC spec makes that clear, I think we win. And recipients
> can still do what they want: if DMARCbis goes out with "use DKIM only"
> and a recipient wants to use SPF anyway, they can do that... just as a
> recipient that decides to use best-guess-SPF in the absence of actual
> SPF
Alessandro, I believe we are on the same wave. I support the DMARC1 tag
extension `auth=‘ idea. Do you have any suggestions for the text?
Technically we don’t need DMARC1-Bis. That document can move forward as is
and a new draft proposal I-D called “DMARC1-EXTENSION-AUTH” can be written
On Fri 23/Jun/2023 20:13:27 +0200 Hector Santos wrote:
On Jun 23, 2023, at 12:52 PM, John R Levine wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023, Emanuel Schorsch wrote:
I agree with John's point that dkim+spf doesn't make sense in the context
of strict DMARC enforcement (I think it provides value for p=none
On Fri 23/Jun/2023 22:56:59 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:
If the DMARC spec makes that clear, I think we win. And recipients
can still do what they want: if DMARCbis goes out with "use DKIM only"
and a recipient wants to use SPF anyway, they can do that... just as a
recipient that decides to use
