Hi, > The correct solution is that the person responsible for creating the problem > record should fix the problem record they created.
How does downgrading p=reject to p=none help the person responsible for creating the problem record to fix it? If it is by looking at the aggregate report, sp and np DispositionType is enough, no need to change p Olivier De: "Dotzero" <dotz...@gmail.com> À: "dmarc" <dmarc@ietf.org> Envoyé: Vendredi 20 Octobre 2023 17:05:45 Objet: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy discovery and invalid tag exception. On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:39 AM OLIVIER HUREAU < [ mailto:olivier.hur...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr | olivier.hur...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr ] > wrote: Hi, > Why would we even consider going down this path? I am considering this pass in order to fix any miscomprehension in the RFC. > Why do you only consider "fixing" quarantine with a dropped "e"? Why don't > you want to fix all the other potential mispellings of quarantine? > Should quarntine be a candidate for "fixing"? If not, why not? I think I wasn't clear enough. I am not concerned about fixing misspelled tags, I am only concerned about the possible "downgrade" of p=reject to p=none if sp/np tag is not valid (and rua is present) Regards, Olivier The correct solution is that the person responsible for creating the problem record should fix the problem record they created. Michael Hammer _______________________________________________ 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
