Heho, > It's in RFC 9091 and in the DMARC update currently in draft form at > the IETF. The intention was always that you could put private > clauses in DMARC records which get ignored by clients that don't > understand them, but the ABNF was overly clever. That's fixed in the > new draft too.
Hrm, digging through this; dmarcbis-27 now; Indeed there are some interesting changes; Implementing this will take some time. Also, given key differences in record parsing (esp. the MUST in -27 2nd to last par. of 5.3, vs. SHOULD same place in 6.3 of 7489) might have interesting implications re: behavior in real world systems, esp. when looking at the long tail of 'mail-in-a-docker-ish' setups glued together with curl | sudo bash. I guess what i will do (with a bit more time) is actually implement both interpretations to policy parsing (7489 as written, not as intended vs. dmarcbis-27) with scoring being at one-passing-is-enough. John: Btw, what I am wondering; Given the last par of 6.3 in 7489, shouldn't dmarcbis switch to DMARC2, given that there are changes to existing tags (REQUIRED -> RECOMMENDED for p, removal of pct, rf, and ri), or does that not constitute a change? (Quick thought; Pretty sure there is a mail-thread on the list, though; Will dig through that later.) With best regards, Tobias _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
