Just noticed that I never replied to this:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com>
wrote:
> Since this is the WG list, I'm not sure if this is still the right list for
> issues with the base spec or not, but here goes ...
>
> The definition of "fo" in Section 5.2, General Record Format, allows both
> values of "0" and "1" to be specified. It was suggested to me offlist
> that this
> might not be appropriate, so I thought it worth a discussion.
>
> Does anyone who's implemented "fo" have a problem with both "0" and "1"
> being
> specified? If it is somehow problematic, then the base spec ought to say
> so.
>
How about this?
1: Generate a DMARC failure report if any underlying
authentication mechanism produced something other
than an aligned "pass" result.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
