I cannot support a MUST statement, but I could support a MUST NOT: "If an evaluator cannot provide results on all relevant identifiers, the message MUST NOT be included in aggregate reports."
The apprropriate language depends on domain owner preferences: Do they prefer no information to partial information? Obviously, if partial information is not prohibited, then it needs to be flagged as incomplete so that report processors can decide whether to user or discard it. My original point was that it is a behavior which can be anticipated, so the specification should address the possibility. Doug On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 6:16 PM Neil Anuskiewicz <n...@marmot-tech.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 2, 2022, at 11:01 AM, Douglas Foster < > dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In many cases, an evaluator can determine a DMARC PASS result > without evaluating every available identifier. > > - If a message has SPF PASS with acceptable alignment, the evaluator > has no need to evaluate any DKIM signatures to know that the message > produces DMARC PASS. > > I think it’s critical to DMARC that receivers do things like evaluate and > report on DKIM whether or not SPF passes and is alignment. Without this, it > would make it harder for senders to notice and remediate gaps in their > authentication. Since there’s not a downside (that I know of), I’d say this > should be a MUST if at all possible. > > Neil >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
