On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think it's wrong to describe that as a DMARC result. For DMARC as > specified, that's a fail. > > More precisely, for both DKIM and DMARC it's a fail. For DKIM+ATPS-04, it's a pass, but DMARC doesn't pay attention to that. I think it's also important to note that this only proves interoperability with a single implementation (granted, in multiple roles), unless there's data indicating multiple implementations are involved. This seems unlikely, since as far as I know there aren't any other implementations of ATPS-04 or even the RFC version. OpenDKIM did the RFC version, and it's not compatible with -04. Also, this is only part of the whole story. There's still that pesky registration problem to address. I think for ATPS or anything like it to be considered a plausible thing to pursue, that's critical. It might be interesting to know some of the characteristics of the largest operator involved in that report (total domains, total users, details about MLM traffic, etc.). -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
