On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, at 9:57 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> The published policy (that's why I suggest dmarc.policy). I'm not sure if
> disposition belongs in A-R. If it does, it'd be a local policy override,
> probably policy.dmarc as described now in RFC 8616.
In that case, if the downstream we
Hello,
if policy quarantine will be kept, I propose including this text in the
specification:
Messages, subject to the quarantine policy, directed to a single recipient that
does not support the concept of
quarantining, can be either accepted and delivered, accepted and discarded, or
rejected.
The published policy (that's why I suggest dmarc.policy). I'm not sure if
disposition belongs in A-R. If it does, it'd be a local policy override,
probably policy.dmarc as described now in RFC 8616.
Scott K
On July 30, 2019 1:34:46 PM UTC, "Дилян Палаузов"
wrote:
>Hello Scott,
>
>do you wan
Hello Scott,
do you want to include in the A-R header the published policy, as obtained from
DNS (my first interpretation of your
proposal), or the disposition of the message after applying DKIM/SPF/DMARC
validation, pct sampling, and the ominous
reject→quarantine sampling conversions?
With dis
On Sun 28/Jul/2019 12:49:12 +0200 Дилян Палаузов wrote:
> The penalty could be implemented with reply
> 550 Message failed DMARC validation and was delivered in the Junk folder of
> the recipient
>
Usually, receiving MTAs drop the message after replying 5xx.
> If an ESP wants to forget about
