Just noticed that I never replied to this: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote:
> Since this is the WG list, I'm not sure if this is still the right list for > issues with the base spec or not, but here goes ... > > The definition of "fo" in Section 5.2, General Record Format, allows both > values of "0" and "1" to be specified. It was suggested to me offlist > that this > might not be appropriate, so I thought it worth a discussion. > > Does anyone who's implemented "fo" have a problem with both "0" and "1" > being > specified? If it is somehow problematic, then the base spec ought to say > so. > How about this? 1: Generate a DMARC failure report if any underlying authentication mechanism produced something other than an aligned "pass" result.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc