Hmm, I guess this means the set of required/optional fields now stretches between the DKIM and ARC specs, eh?
Is t the only one that's now optional? For Seal, I have i, a, s, d, b, cv (removed t based on this thread) For AMS, I have i, a, s, c, d, d, b, h, bh Brandon On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:05 PM Kurt Andersen (b) <kb...@drkurt.com> wrote: > Please implement -13, but there are almost no protocol changes between -6 > and -13. It's mostly editorial. We may have made some tags optional but if > Google wants 'em, it's probably best to include them, but that doesn't mean > you aren't implementing -13. > > --Kurt > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Jeremy Harris <j...@wizmail.org> wrote: > >> On 21/03/18 15:18, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 3:00 PM, <internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote: >> > >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13.txt >> >> has been successfully submitted by Kurt Andersen and posted to the >> >> IETF repository. >> >> I see that Google are still listed as implementing Version 6 - >> and indeed, if you don't supply a t= tag in the AS (which is not >> required, as far as I can find in Version 13) then gmail.com says: >> >> "arc=fail (missing mandatory fields);" >> >> in it's A-R. >> >> Which should I implement? >> De-jure, or de-facto (and too-big-to-fail)? >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Jeremy >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> dmarc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
