On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 4:34 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote:
> > I think this is correct. I think it's obviously enough correct that I'm > surprised anyone was confused. > > Do we know what the theory was that led people to think otherwise? > > Seems to me we don't really need this, but maybe there's a reason. > > The reasons given were: 1. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5863#section-4.1 2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6376#section-7.5 3. Neither RFC 7489 nor DMARCbis contain the phrase "CNAME", so if it's not explicitly mentioned... Granted, the first two citations are in regards to DKIM records, not DMARC records, but those were the reasons given. -- 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
