On Tue 26/Aug/2025 11:37:47 +0200 Steven M Jones wrote:
On 8/23/25 16:41, Dotzero wrote:
I have no suggested changes for this section. It's short and straight forward.
Yep. Nothing to add, nothing to take away. On to the next section...
After some rethinking, this section is not correct. RFCs 6591/2 don't actually
describe a reporting format. They describe ways to ask for them. Perhaps we
could fix it like so:
OLD
This document only describes DMARC failure reports. DKIM failure reports
[RFC6651] and SPF failure reports [RFC6652] are described in separate
documents. A Mail Receiver generating a DMARC failure report may or may not
also issue a failure report specific to the failed authentication
mechanism, according to its policy.
NEW
This document describes only DMARC failure reports. DKIM failure reports
and SPF failure reports are described in [RFC6591]. A Mail Receiver
generating DMARC failure reports MAY issue failure reports specific to the
failed authentication mechanism instead of, or in addition to, DMARC
failure reports, based on its own policy, the failure in question, and the
content of the fo= tag in the retrieved DMARC Policy Record.
Note that DKIM failure reports and SPF failure reports can also be
requested using the methods described in [RFC6651] and [RFC6652]
respectively. Report Generators are free to follow any of the
specifications. Report Consumers are RECOMMENDED to consolidate their
requirements into a single DMARC Policy Record.
This should better clarify the relations among these RFCs.
The recommendation is justified by the greater adoption of RFC 7489 with
respect to RFCs 6651/2.
Comments?
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
