On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Seth Blank <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So I guess returning to the original thread, there are two matters: > > 1) Should we stamp header.b in the A-R? (consensus seems to be yes) > It's defined, may as well use it. > 2) How should we transmit the source_ip for the DMARC report? > > Murray, does your suggestion mean a separate doc regarding a signed > Source-IP header that would then be referenced in ARC and covered by... > what, the AS? Or is there a cleaner way? > Source-IP was just one suggestion. If we do decide to do that, I would do it in a separate document, and then the ARC work can just recommend its use and require covering it in the AMS or AS if it's present. We could also risk some wormy can opening and discuss the idea of expanding the scope of A-R to include this use case rather than strictly supporting MUAs, thereby enabling your original idea. Both of those ideas are valid, and there may be others. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
