On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 5:35 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
> According to Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com>:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >Based on the ABNF in -28, how about something like this:
> >
> >
> >dmarc-method = "dkim" / "spf"
> >
> >dmarc-auth = "auth" equals dmarc-method *(*WSP "," *WSP dmarc-method)
>
>
1) I realize we may need someway to update the dmarc-method if a new one is
added (okay okay)
> That looks OK, with large clear text saying that if any of the listed
> methods pass, it's aligned.
>
2) I missed Scott's comment the default should be "spf,dkim"
I wordsmithed Wei's definition above for Section 5.3
auth: (comma-separated plain-text list of dmarc-methods; OPTIONAL;
default is "spf,dkim")
Indicates the supported authentication methods. If more than one method
is specified,
they are comma ',' separated without whitespace. The order of the list
is not significant and
unknown methods are ignored. Possible values are as follows:
dkim: Authenticate with DKIM
spf: Authenticate with SPF
An empty list indicates no authentication method is specified and DMARC
is disabled.
If any listed method passes, then DMARC is aligned.
Should I do a pull request etc, etc?
tim
> R's,
> John
> --
> Regards,
> John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> Dummies",
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
