[dmarc-discuss] Fwd: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04 issue
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
>>> 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.
More information about the dmarc-discuss