On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 09:48 -0500, DMARC via dmarc-discuss wrote: > I've always been a little confused with the distinctions between > the 'iodef' Incident Object Description Exchange Format or 'afrf' > Authentication Failure Reporting Formats. > > Obviously, afrf has become the defacto standard, as that's all I see in > any DMARC record that I examine. > > I've reviewed https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5070 and am no closer to > appreciating the impact of selecting one format over another. > > Is this an example where one standard as been publically accepted and the > competing standards are more or less deprecated in deployment ?
My understanding is that IODEF is supported by Incident Response tools so if you wanted your DMARC reports to feed in to one of those, you'd pick it. I haven't encountered this use-case yet with a deployment so this is just my guess. Ken. -- Ken O'Driscoll / We Monitor Email t: +353 1 254 9400 | w: www.wemonitoremail.com Need to understand deliverability? Now there's a book: www.wemonitoremail.com/book _______________________________________________ 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)
