[dmarc-discuss] Fwd: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04 issue

Scott Kitterman sklist at kitterman.com
Mon Sep 1 10:06:49 PDT 2014


On September 1, 2014 12:50:04 PM EDT, John Levine <johnl at 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 DMARC, SPF/DKIM failed/none are the same thing.
>
>For DMARC pass/fail, sure.  For DMARC reporting, I dunno.
>
>Practically speaking, I would not find reports confirming that I had
>no SPF at all very interesting.  Remember that this is for messages
>that passed DMARC anyway, so they must have had signatures.  Ditto if
>they say there was no signature, but the SPF was OK.

I agree most wouldn't find it interesting, but fo 0 is the default. 

If there is supposed to be a none/fail distinction for fo 1, then I think it needs to be explicitly called out. 

Scott K




More information about the dmarc-discuss mailing list