On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:18 PM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <CABuGu1qZY2PtLJG+A-1aHDKiKY_1VHRPZ5aNJ1ans4pHnczrzQ@mail. > gmail.com> you write: > >My contention to Seth is that in a multi-hop scenario, the *only* report > >with meaningful data will be the one from the handler who made the "fail" > >determination and any subsequent reports are untrustworthy. > > Assuming that "subsequent" means earlier in the chain, I agree. > No, by subsequent I mean intermediaries who handle the message after the point of initial "oh, this is broken" determination. So if I'm the 5th intermediary (let's assume that all are ARC participating for this discussion), and the chain on the message that I receive does not pass the validation checks (for any of the three possible reasons), then my report is meaningful to the sender but reports from 6, 7, 8, etc are not. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
