On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 6:21 PM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I only know about one configuration, my own. I was respond to Murray, > who suggested escalation might be performed in some context. Maybe so, > but it does not matter. Evaluators are free to evaluate as many > signatures as they wish, and to use them as they wish. Non-aligned > signatures are completely irrelevant to DMARC's purposes, so evaluation of > them should be optional and reporting about them should be deprecated. > The last two sentences, I would argue, are in conflict. If evaluators (i.e., the DKIM layer) are free to evaluate as many signatures as they wish, then DMARC has no way to assert which ones are optional; that decision is made at the DKIM layer. At best, DMARC can make that request of the DKIM validator, but that presumes you're using a DKIM validator that gives DMARC that discretion. The DKIM RFC doesn't guarantee any such choice, which means there's nothing DMARC can specify here. The thing in DMARC's discretion is which ones to report. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
