On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 9:59 AM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> It appears that Steven M Jones <[email protected]> said: > >> Yes, a failure report should be sent. ... > > > >I agree - if the message receiver is participating in failure reports > >and the domain owner has requested them, then send them when there's a > >failure. > > We've had failure reports since about 2012, and the rule has always been > to send reports > on any unaligned message. > > I do not understand why we are wasting time arguing about something that > was settled a decade ago. > At this point any changes to the way DMARC works are wildly out of scope. > > R's, > John > +1 I'd also point out that both Douglas and Ale are assuming (no supporting data presented) that their personal experience and beliefs reflect the experience and needs of others.For example, if a financial institution sends a notification to a customer and it passes through a mailing list which breaks both SPF and DKIM (I've seen this happen), they would almost certainly be interested in the failure report for this legitimate mail. But getting back to John's point. This is a bis document which is Standards Track. We should be staying within the scope of the recharter and NOT be trying to add functionality. Local policy overrides are especially tricky because they typically involve information and decisions beyond the scope of DMARC pass/fail itself. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
