On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 11:04 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> On Thu 14/Mar/2024 15:38:23 +0100 Todd Herr wrote: > > To summarize this thread, I see three nits, all of which have been added > to > > issue 133: > > > [snip] > > > > 3. Section 5.3., General Record Format, update the description of the > > 'd' and 's' values for the 'fo' tag. They currently begin with > > "Generate a DKIM failure report"/"Generate an SPF failure report", > > respectively, and both should instead begin with "Generate a DMARC > > failure report". > > > I'm glad that's a nit. I feared it was meant. > > Honestly I'm no longer sure what's correct here. The text I'm proposing a change to first appeared in RFC 7489, and both value descriptions linked out to AFRF format RFCs for DKIM and SPF, respectively (6651 and 6652). Both of those RFCs speak of separate reporting addresses for the failure-specific reports. I now think this merits further discussion. -- Todd Herr | Technical Director, Standards & Ecosystem Email: todd.h...@valimail.com Phone: 703-220-4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
