Forwarding here as suggested on the DMARC list. Scott K
-------- Original Message -------- From: Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> Sent: August 29, 2014 11:39:24 PM EDT To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04 issue Since this is the WG list, I'm not sure if this is still the right list for issues with the base spec or not, but here goes ... The definition of "fo" in Section 5.2, General Record Format, allows both values of "0" and "1" to be specified. It was suggested to me offlist that this might not be appropriate, so I thought it worth a discussion. Does anyone who's implemented "fo" have a problem with both "0" and "1" being specified? If it is somehow problematic, then the base spec ought to say so. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
