On September 1, 2014 12:50:04 PM EDT, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
I don't understand what fo=1 is supposed to mean. ..
The ambiguity for me is between SPF or DKIM failed and no SPF or
DKIM
at all. As I read it, it probably means failure, but maybe it means
something else.
I think for
I don't understand what fo=1 is supposed to mean. If there's no SPF
record at all, are you supposed to generate a report? If there's no
DKIM signature at all, same question? Of if there are DKIM signatures,
but none of them have a d= that matches the From: address?
My reading of the draft says
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.
I don't understand what fo=1 is supposed to mean. If there's no SPF
record at all, are you supposed to generate a report? If there's no
DKIM
On August 30, 2014 7:26:19 PM EDT, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
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.
I don't understand what fo=1 is supposed to mean. If there's no SPF
record
