On Monday, January 05, 2015 02:11:17 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Jim Fenton <[email protected]> wrote: ... > > Not mentioned anywhere: Which SPF modes are considered to be a "pass" > > for purposes of DMARC? Presumably +, presumably not -, but it should say > > something about ? and ~ if it doesn't already. > > Not only is that another late-stage technical issue to punt to the working > group, but I also claim that's a layering violation. SPF simply reports a > pass/fail/temperror/etc. It's not the purview of DMARC to ask what kind of > "pass" it was any more than it is the purview of DMARC to ask which header > fields or how much body was covered by an aligned DKIM signature. Neither > SPF nor DKIM report those things.
Right, pass is pass. The more interesting question is what is fail. I think with the recent hand wringing over temporary DNS errors we can reasonably say that fail is not pass or temporary DNS error. I don't think the spec needs further changes in this regard. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
