On Thursday, December 30, 2021 3:24:43 PM EST su...@banbreach.com via dmarc- discuss wrote: > On Friday, December 31, 2021 00:05 IST, Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > > On Thursday, December 30, 2021 1:02:33 PM EST su...@banbreach.com via > > dmarc-> > > discuss wrote: > > > osx:~ test$ dig _dmarc.gov.in txt > > > > > > Does RFC 7489 allow an eTLD to set up a DMARC record? > > > > It does not. RFC 9091 does. > > Thanks. > > 1. Since gov.in is not part of the PSD DMARC test group, what is the correct > interpretation of the gov.in DMARC record? > > 2. When searching for DMARC records for net.ac, Proofpoint reports that the > record is empty, Valimail reports the record is not-configured, Agari and > Dmarcian report no DMARC record found. A consistent, correct error message > would be helpful irrespective of which vendor's tool we use. Will be > addressed in RFC 9091?
Per RFC 9091, since gov.in isn't listed in one of the registries, the record would not be used. Those can be updated, so that's not necessarily going to stay that way. Also, as John Levine mentioned, in the update that we have in progress in the working group, the record would be used. No. RFC 9091 is published and complete. It does not address that point. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
