Forgive me if this a dumb idea but, Scott and others, any discussion of just deprecating SPF hardfail at some point?
> On Apr 6, 2024, at 1:40 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > > It appears that Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> said: >> I hear you. Your operational issue is my system working as designed. DMARC >> works on top of SPF, it doesn't change it. >> >> Anything like this belongs in an operational guidance document, not in the >> protocol description. I have no problem describing the trade offs in an >> appropriate document, but I don't think this is it. > > I agree. "Don't do stupid stuff" goes in an A/S, not in the spec. > > I entirely believe people are confused about SPF, but they're confused > about everything. A few days ago on the generally clueful NANOG list > we had to explain to someone that rejecting mail if DKIM signatures > don't verify is not a good idea. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > 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
