In article <b54e5d04-a90b-8bae-9224-2c94409ef...@wisc.edu> you write: >I would hesitate to assume that seeing p=none on a domain as an indicator that >they are serious about deploying DMARC and reconciling their >own Holy Roman Empire conundrums; rather it's there just to not be seen as >lagging behind their peers, justifying funding for more SOC >staff and perhaps buying some tools (*some* of which, hopefully, may be >deployed to actually solve the issues identified in the DMARC >reports).
I figure they're collecting reports to see where their mail is going. That's what I do. The reports are interesting even if you have no intention of ever publishing a policy other than p=none. >For better or worse, DHS BOD 18-01 mandated that all federal agencies publish >p=reject on their domains. Now, *that* must have forced each >agency to figure out how to actually deploy DMARC and deal with the >implications. I applaud the tenacity. Hahaha. It means they published SPF and DMARC p=reject records and checked it off. I've been dealing with fairly important mail to my users falling on the floor ever since. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
