On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:23 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >> The typical reaction to the disruption they created was to translate > their > >> p=reject into p=quarantine. > > > >Would you provide some proof of this assertion? > > I'm not Doug, but Google unquestionably did that when AOL and Yahoo started > publishing p=reject. >
We didn't change anything at that point. We already had code for treating some specific cases as p=quarantine where we expected the messages were unable to pass SPF or DKIM. Its not a blanket thing, and we expect it will be tightened up over time ... especially if phishers figure out how to spoof it. Brandon
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
