I am just catching on to the implications of this discussion, and I must disagree
It makes no sense to allow "p=" missing. Why would we suggest that all existing implementations alter their code to tolerate additional unnecessary complexity, rather than requiring domain administrators to key a few more characters so that code changes will not be necessary? There is no functional difference between "p=" missing and "p=none". Both configurations state: "I don't know what to tell you, you are on your own." I also don't understand this comment from Allesandro : "Operators who don't need policy, for example external report receivers who just want to publish verification records, would find the relevant info in the base spec." There is only one policy record, published by the domain owner. The DNS record either suggests enforcement (p=quarantine, p=reject) or it does not (p=none, p=missing, no DMARC record). Let's not add code complexity when it provides no benefit. Doug Foster
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
