Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > I'm not so sure about the SHOULD because the only interoperability > A-R enables is stuff between the verifiers and the MUAs and humans, > really. It certainly wouldn't be a bad idea for us to highlight > how useful it would be though.
I'm in strong agreement with the "SHOULD" (at least). If we want to ask the MUA developers to do something to inform the end user about authentication results, we sure as shooting should put our protocol where our mouth is by putting in a requirement that MTAs give them that information. I have no opinion about the specifics of Vlatko's list, and I also suspect that it might want to be "SHOULD provide these A-R data *by default*," with the nuance that MTAs can provide a configuration option to reduce the chatter. (They're presumably logging all this information, right? A-R is a convenience for MUAs, sysadmins can use the logs although they too might find an A-R field very convenient.) _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
