On Thu, 22 Jun 2023, Emanuel Schorsch wrote:
I agree with John's point that dkim+spf doesn't make sense in the context of strict DMARC enforcement (I think it provides value for p=none domains
Since the aggregate reports tell you what authentication worked, I don't even see that as a benefit. There's also the question how many people would even look at a DMARC v2 tag which would be a prerequisite for the auth tag.
confused users misusing that option. I would support allowing the following options for the auth tag: "auth=dkim|spf (default value: same as current state), auth=dkim, auth=spf"
The idea is that auth=dkim means you'd publish SPF records but hope people will ignore them, or vice versa for auth=dkim? I still don't get it.
Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY 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
