On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 9:32 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> On Sun 31/Mar/2024 14:22:04 +0200 Douglas Foster wrote: > > On SPF, our document should say simply, > > " a DMARC-compliant evaluator MUST NOT reject a message, based on SPF > result, > > prior to receiving the Data section and checking for aligned and > verifiable > > signatures." > > Nonsense. Rejecting at RCPT TO is much quicker than waiting for the whole > message. People who publish -all know what they do. > Of course it is, but it prevents DKIM signatures from being tested, and hence DMARC from being evaluated. Maybe that's what you want, but maybe it's not what everyone wants. > I also reject based on RBLs and private IP lists; does that affect DMARC > compliance? > I might argue that you can't possibly claim DMARC compliance if you're not even getting far enough to execute its algorithm. -MSK, p11g
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
