On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 8:25 PM Jesse Thompson <z...@fastmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, at 4:06 PM, Todd Herr wrote: > > Someone posting at Security Boulevard has decreed that DMARCbis (at least > the t= tag parts of it) are now codified: > > https://securityboulevard.com/2023/10/dmarc-t-tag-replaces-pct-in-dmarcbis/ > > This person did a fantastic job of cutting and pasting from DMARCbis to > "create" their "content". > > > It's a good summary IMO > The article was created using plagiarized non-IETF/RFC credited text from the DMARCbis appendix A.7, which is a point I think Todd was trying to make. > Is it advisable to use "t=y pct=0" for backwards compatibility? > I'm curious about this as well. I imagine implementation experience with this will vary widely because there's unfortunately no shortage of receivers rolling non-standard DMARC evaluation logic with liberal interpretations of expected syntax and tags, even though the ABNF and section 5.3 are explicit with instruction on how to proceed in those cases. - Mark Alley
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
