RFC7489 contains a description of the possible PolicyOverrideType
values: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7489#page-72>
While aggregate-reporting-14 uses the same set of values, the
description is missing. I suggest to add it back as a new section into
the main body. "sampled_out" needs an update due to the replacement of
the "pct" tag. Text suggestion follows.
OLD 2.1.1
There MAY be an element for reason, meant to include any notes the
reporter might want to include as to why the disposition policy does not
match the policy_published, such as a Local Policy override (possible
values listed in Appendix A).
CHANGED 2.1.1
There MAY be an element for reason, meant to include any notes the
reporter might want to include as to why the disposition policy does not
match the policy_published, such as a Local Policy override (see Section
2.1.5).
NEW 2.1.5 Policy Override Reason
The reason element, indicating an override of the DMARC policy, consists
of a mandatory type field and an optional comment field. The type field
MUST have one of the pre-defined values listed below. The comment field
is an unbounded string for providing further details.
Possible values for the policy override type:
forwarded: The message was relayed via a known forwarder, or local
heuristics identified the message as likely having been forwarded.
There is no expectation that authentication would pass.
local_policy: The Mail Receiver's local policy exempted the message
from being subjected to the Domain Owner's requested policy
action.
mailing_list: Local heuristics determined that the message arrived
via a mailing list, and thus authentication of the original
message was not expected to succeed.
other: Some policy exception not covered by the other entries in
this list occurred. Additional detail can be found in the
PolicyOverrideReason's "comment" field.
sampled_out: The message was exempted from application of policy by
the testing mode ("t" tag) in the DMARC policy record.
trusted_forwarder: Message authentication failure was anticipated by
other evidence linking the message to a locally maintained list of
known and trusted forwarders.
Regards,
Matt
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
