> On Jun 1, 2019, at 4:13 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:55 AM Dilyan Palauzov <dilyan.palau...@aegee.org
> <mailto:dilyan.palau...@aegee.org>> wrote:
> Shall I submit an erratum to RFC7489?
>
> I would, yes. And this should certainly be recorded as something we need to
> fix for standards track DMARC, whether by chasing down RFC7489 errata or via
> a dedicated issue in this WG's tracker.
I did not see this item submitted as errata, so I put it into the tracker:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/30
I'd like to float the idea that this scenario might be something operators
address when they're generating reports (perhaps mentioned in DMARC Usage
Guide?).
That said, the NOTIFY=NEVER idea makes a lot of sense to me, but I have to
admit I'm not exactly sure how easy it is for operators to set this. If its not
super obvious and available everywhere for free, I have to assume this means
it'll be partially deployed forever, which puts us back at square one.
Sending with an empty RFC5321.MAILFROM sort of turns DMARC reports into a form
of DSN. Implications unknown!
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
