> On 1 Apr 2024, at 13:18, Brotman, Alex > <Alex_Brotman=40comcast....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > One item left out of Seth’s text is that due to MBPs who act in this fashion, > these SPF evaluation failures will (understandably) not show up in DMARC > reports, and the domain owner may not have visibility for these failures. > However, the text also puts the onus on the domain owner instead of the MBP. > The text could be altered to instead suggest that MBPs who deploy DMARC > should not utilize the outcome of SPF in this fashion. If the domain owner > wants to protect their domain, and has no idea if the MBP supports DMARC > properly (presuming they also have an enforcing policy), is it more or less > advisable to use “-all” with your SPF record?
Is that true, though? I just saw a report yesterday that someone had temp failures at Gmail (73 to be exact) and Gmail sent 73 DMARC reports for that sender / IP combo. So that’s one bit of evidence that even if the message is not accepted, DMARC reports are sent. laura -- The Delivery Expert Laura Atkins Word to the Wise la...@wordtothewise.com Delivery hints and commentary: http://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
