Please implement -13, but there are almost no protocol changes between -6 and -13. It's mostly editorial. We may have made some tags optional but if Google wants 'em, it's probably best to include them, but that doesn't mean you aren't implementing -13.
--Kurt On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Jeremy Harris <j...@wizmail.org> wrote: > On 21/03/18 15:18, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 3:00 PM, <internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote: > > > >> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13.txt > >> has been successfully submitted by Kurt Andersen and posted to the > >> IETF repository. > > I see that Google are still listed as implementing Version 6 - > and indeed, if you don't supply a t= tag in the AS (which is not > required, as far as I can find in Version 13) then gmail.com says: > > "arc=fail (missing mandatory fields);" > > in it's A-R. > > Which should I implement? > De-jure, or de-facto (and too-big-to-fail)? > > -- > Cheers, > Jeremy > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
