It appears that Trent Adams <tad...@proofpoint.com> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > > >Alex - > >I think that the difference comes down to an inference made by the report >analyst (and assuming enough data to make an >informed guess) vs. the report generator expressly stating the mechanism they >used. > >IMO, it makes sense to include the signal. I'd rather not rely on inference >when an a priori statement can be transmitted. > >But yeah... what do others think?
So long as we make it clear that it's optional, sure, why not. It has to be optional because existing generators don't add it. R's, John PS: Perhaps we should set up a pool for how long it takes to start getting reports that claim they didn't use a tree walk, but only go to domains that a tree walk would find. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
