On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 5:02 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> said: > >-=-=-=-=-=- > > > >Still no hat! > > I was under the impression that we all agreed that we're not going to > change > the failure reporting spec other than by providing better examples. > > ith that in mind, I cannot imagine why we would screw around inventing new > IANA registries. We didn't have them in 7489. What's different now? >
I believe the intent is to have a failure reporting type of "dmarc", which RFC 6591 doesn't currently have in its list of known failure types. This is what I believe Alessandro proposed as a way to introduce that value. I can't remember if this was discussed previously. I was just responding to the proposed change. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
