On Thursday, May 07, 2015 04:53:07 PM Hector Santos wrote:
> Scott,
>
> If this is what you are talking about, there should of been an
> AUTH-RES line for "atps=", I can understand that valid technical
> point, but I don't agree it is absolute.
>
> First, it is a DMARC extension and long as it is an indicated marker
> in the DMARC result, then should be ok.
>
> Second, related, one of the problems with AUTH-RES and the reason
> there is so many changes to it, is because its doesn't quite satisfy
> what an receiver might need. I had that problem with just adding ADSP
> to it. It didn't even support getting SPF fully reported.
>
> In other words, the dynamics are still changes in order to get a solid
> AUTH-RES reporting header completed. In fact, if your point is taken
> serious, then AUTH-RES will need even more updates to support other
> results, such as the double signature proposal.
>
> So this is a side issue that really has nothing to do with the overall
> basic protocol issue we are dealing with, but it is a good note to
> point out because you will run into the same "separation" issue with
> any other additional layer you want to add on top of DKIM and into the
> AUTH-RES header.
>
> Thanks for the note.
ATPS is assigned in the registry {1] as dkim-atps.
Scott K
[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email-auth.xhtml
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
