Keeping it as-is for backwards compatibility is probably the best option.
I'm not sure that it's necessary to keep it as is for backward
compatibility. Both RFC 7489 and DMARCbis contain the phrase "unknown tags
MUST be ignored" in the General Record Format text, so even if DMARCbis
were to strike the 'ruf' tag and the concept of failure reporting entirely,
it shouldn't break anything for compliant legacy or updated implementations.
Considering how slowly people update their software, even if we deprecated
ruf= there's going to be a lot of mail sent to those addresses.
As Mike noted, there is a considerable amount of failure reporting by
private agreement so someone thinks it's useful. I would prefer to
clarify the spec to encourage people who send reports to send them in the
right format and otherwise leave it alone.
If the current authors of the failure draft don't want to do that, I think
I could since the main draft seems pretty close to done.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
