[Last-Call] [secdir] Re: [dmarc-ietf] Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-36

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Richard Clayton writes:
> (b) some small mailbox providers believe in the value of SPF to do
> early stage filtering of mailflows and may penalise your domain for
> not having any SPF at all.

Doing early SPF filtering is against DMARCbis document, as DMARCbis
document do require checking both DKIM and SPF, and those who do early
filtering of the emails based on the SPF, usually do it before
actually seeing the email, thus they do not even know if the emaisl
have DKIM headers or not.

Anybody doing early stage filtering of mailflows based on the SPF, and
not checking DKIM is not following the DMARCbis document, thus they
are out of scope of the DMARCbis discussion.

You are allowed to do SPF only separately. You are not allowed to do
SPF only when you claim to do DMARCbis.

I think the current document is clear about that, but perhaps we
should make it even more obvious, and explictly say so. 
-- 
kivinen@xxxxxx

-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux