(with no hats) p=none with no reporting is fine, and we should keep it.
One thing the WG could do is a BCP document on operational recommendations where there are certain suggestions like this. tim On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 5:37 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: > On Fri 15/May/2020 20:26:24 +0200 Seth Blank wrote: > > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/63 > > > > A published DMARC record that consists solely of "v=DMARC1; p=none" is > > syntactically valid, but is semantically equivalent to having no record > at all. > > > > From an ecosystem perspective, especially in Europe, data has been shared > > showing an increasing number of domains putting in bare p=none records, > and > > then claiming that they are implementing DMARC and have some layer of > > protection against spoofing of their domain. > > > > Explicitly making this case invalid would remove confusion from the > ecosystem, > > and allow any checker that is up to spec to properly flag a bare p=none > record > > as being the same as not having a record at all. > > > > Should we make it invalid to have p=none without a reporting address? > > > No. A bare "v=DMARC1; p=none" still behaves better than NXDOMAIN, and may > cut > the number of necessary queries. We should instead recommend it. > > > Best > Ale > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
