It appears that Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> said: >> I agree with Ale. Further, it is not as if we are considering this in a >vacuum. Since originally being made public, DMARC has been widely >implemented and it has not been identified that this (early reject on SPF >-all) has been a significant or even an insignificant problem based on data.
A bare -all is clearly a special case, the converse of null MX, that means no mail at all. I agree the current wording is fine. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
