Both of these statements seem unnecessarily weak, bordering on apologetic.
5.3.General Record Format
PSD ("n")
."... There is no need to put psd=n in a DMARC record, except in the very
unusual case of a parent PSD publishing a DMARC record without the
requisite psd=y tag."
11.8 Determination of t
Hi,
it would be much more real-life to exemplify directing /aggregate/
reports to third parties, which is quite common. Directing failure
reports to third parties would be a privacy nightmare.
I'd suggest turning the subsection from ruf= to rua=. Indeed, the spec
for Verifying External Des
Hi,
first the typo. Example 3 in appendix B.1.2 uses sample.net (an
existing domain) instead of example.net:
DKIM-Signature: v=1; ...; d=sample.net; ...
Second, Example 2 is labelled "parent" in both SPF and DKIM subsections.
However, for SPF the identifier is a child of the From:
Count| Bytes | Who
++---
55 ( 100%) | 480559 ( 100%) | Total
18 (32.7%) | 88328 (18.4%) |
13 (23.6%) | 151499 (31.5%) | Todd Herr
5 ( 9.1%) | 52800 (11.0%) | Tim Wicinski
4 ( 7.3%) | 35234 ( 7.3%) | Murray S. Kucherawy
4 ( 7.3%) | 2
On 10/03/2024 05:34, Tim Wicinski wrote:
On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 10:33 PM OLIVIER HUREAU
wrote:
[...]
I would also add comment about the dmarc-fo ABNF :
dmarc-fo = "0" / "1" / "d" / "s" / "d:s" / "s:d"
The FO paragraph (
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30.html#name
