That's the reason people set p=quarantine; pct=0; t=y. Indeed, if there is a
failure, one would want to fix something.
I suggested that, we'll see.
This morning on Twitter @mnot noted with alarm that failure reports
about list messages give you a pretty good idea about who some of the
list subscribers are, which is true, and that it's something a list
operator can turn on or off, which is not.
List operators can (should? must?) rewrite From:.
Blaming the victim? Let's not do that.
The best keyword to prevent use of DMARC by domains attending mailing lists
would be "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)" from RFC6919 ;-)
Right. I'll try and write something along those lines.
In part, the format is difficult because it is not described in the document,
but in RFC6591, which in turn refers to RFC5965. Perhaps adding a complete
example might help.
Not a bad idea. I see a bunch of bad failure reports in the same format
so presumably there is one broken library they're using.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
