> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 1:30 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] DISCUSS on draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting > > The correct clarification is one report per /signing/ domain per > message. If a domain includes multiple signatures in a given message, > they may get a report for each failed one.
Yes, that's the change I'm proposing. > Perhaps, it makes sense to keep "all" the default, but require rr=all:u > to also get unrecognized tags reports. That's not very "all" then... > Would those reports need to be routed to a different team/script? I sure hope not! > Should they be tagged, say, Feedback-Type: auth-feedback, rather than > auth-failure? It's way too late to try that now, I think. Bogus tags could indeed be a sign of attempts to confound verifiers, so I think for now they're fine to include as abuse reporting, the same as our various other possible requests. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
