On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 7:04:38 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Wed 12/Jul/2023 12:54:38 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 3:29:34 AM EDT Baptiste Carvello wrote: > > ... > > > >> Why? Because it's brittle and will only bring them more headaches? At > >> the very least, DMARC would need to use its own 5xy reply code to avoid > >> the need for parsing the reply text… > > > > This is a very good point. The IANA Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) > > Enhanced Status Codes Registry [1] has codes for SPF and DKIM (RFC 7372) > > and ARC (RFC 8617), but not DMARC. Adding one is not currently in the > > DMARCbis draft, but I think it should be. > > +1; still, having the word "DMARC" in the text greatly simplifies parsing > logs. > > > I noted that Baptiste wrote 5xx, not 5.x.x. 5xx has to be 550 methinks.
I agree re 550. Also, if I were writing the reject message that goes after the code, I would include DMARC in it. I suspect most will for human readability, but programatically, I'd use the codes if present. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
