On Friday, December 31, 2021 04:33 IST, Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > 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? > > > > 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. >
Is there a (command-line, perhaps) tool that I can use to test a domain for conformance with RFC 7489, 9091 and potentially the ones under active development? I would like to be able to query like so: osx:~ test$ check_dmarc gov.in [strict] RFC 7489 [no] RFC 9091 [no] dmarc-bis osx:~ test$ check_dmarc gov [strict] RFC 7489 [yes] RFC 9091 [no] dmarc-bis osx:~ test$ check_dmarc foobar not a PSD osx:~ test$ check_dmarc foobar.gov [no] RFC 7489 [yes] RFC 9091 <via PSO> ... The following caught my eye, but I don't think they have tree walk implemented. <https://github.com/cisagov/trustymail>. Most other command line tools available on github seem to be limited to RFC 7489. Regards, Suman _______________________________________________ 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)
