The problem with that language is that > o The identifier evaluated by DKIM and the DKIM result, if any
is genuinely unclear. Often there are multiple identifiers. Does this mean I can pick any one of them? (That does not actually provide sufficient interoperability.) If there’s a specific one I should pick, which is it? Elizabeth On Jun 21, 2019, at 12:11 PM, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: >> I believe they MUST contain any aligned DKIM signature regardless of >> validity and SHOULD contain an entry for each domain, selector, result >> triple. > > RFC 7489 says: > > The report SHOULD include the following data: > > o The DMARC policy discovered and applied, if any > > o The selected message disposition > > o The identifier evaluated by SPF and the SPF result, if any > > o The identifier evaluated by DKIM and the DKIM result, if any > > o For both DKIM and SPF, an indication of whether the identifier was > in alignment > > (and a bunch of other stuff) > > I don't see any basis to change this, since as long as the report's format > and syntax are correct, it'll interoperate. It may not have all the hints > the report's recipient would like, but life is like that. > > R's, > John
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
