On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > > The way those fields are added seems wrong to me. RFC7601 spells all of > that out in terms of distinct (but related) ptypes and properties, which > are separate things. Adding "header.ds" as a single thing conflicts with > the way A-R is defined. At a minimum this should reflect that, though it > also brings up the fact that A-R has a registry for these; are we planning > to ignore, replace, clone, or augment that registry for this purpose? >
Yup, that's why I explicitly asked if they were defined correctly in question #4 here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xUUbT15vqoBmH7RraJ_pesrd9z0 Can the WG please revisit that thread and the open questions. S
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
