It appears that Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> said: >> Addressing this issue - perusing Section 5.5.6, is there anything else >> we could add that would be acceptable language in an Standards track >> document to encourage urgency behind a transitory state of p=none use by >> domain owners? Would that even make sense to do? (Legitimate question >> for the WG) > >I don't think the claim that p=none is "transitory" is at all generally >correct. It will be in some cases and not others.
I have to agree. I still have no plans to use anything other than p=none on most of my domains. Also, it's not like p=reject is a magic bullet. It makes some kinds of mail forgery harder, but it does nothing about lookalike domains or attacks that use the fact that most mail programs don't even show the author's address. Please, let's not get distracted and let's finish up. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org
