> On Jun 15, 2019, at 9:25 PM, Дилян Палаузов wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> p=reject; pct=0 is equivalent to p=quarantine; pct=0.
I've not been following this thread too closely so I might be missing
something, but under current
DMARC spec I don't think that's so - see section 6.6.4.
If I've
Hello,
p=reject; pct=0 is equivalent to p=quarantine; pct=0.
The rest of this email is about (against) handling p=reject and p=quarantine
differently. Namely, where a server
rejects on p=reject and “quarantines” on p=quarantine.
There are more examples, all under the category p=quarantine,
On 6/14/2019 9:34 PM, dmarcietf=40tomki@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
The suggestion: provide guidelines on data integrity, which data
providers should follow.
Examples:
- raw SPF 'fail' should never result in DMARC-SPF 'pass'
- raw SPF 'pass' out of alignment with header_from should never result
On 6/14/2019 5:58 PM, Дилян Палаузов wrote:
Hello Ken,
effectively I proposed handling p=reject and p=quarantine the same way.
..
Lets have an example for p=quaranite:
majordomo@domain is an address where commands are sent and the software
receiving the
command always sends an answer, even
On Fri 14/Jun/2019 18:25:02 +0200 Vladimir Dubrovin wrote:
> If you are implementing DMARC for a new domain (let's say example.org), you
> usually start with "p=none". With p=none you receive reports for failed DMARC
> for different lists, like ietf.org. Before switching to stronger policy
>
