On Thu 13/Dec/2018 17:08:46 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote: > Let me suggest a much easier hack, which differs in utility mostly by being > post hoc rather than the current draft's pre-hoc mechanism: > > Require the registry to publish another DNS record, in its _dmarc node, > which a) asserts either than DMARC is required or that the subtree is part of > a > single organization, and b) contain a URL to the documentation for this. > > A query for the DMARC record of the registry will also deliver this > information > record. (This might be the first case in which the problem of getting 'other' > TXT records is actually a feature and not a problem...) > > That makes the information public, while avoiding the considerable overhead > and > problems of a new registry -- nevermind one that needs real-time querying.
+1. The documentation is going to be consumed by MTA admins who decide whether to honor the rua= request or not. A community reviewed distributed registry. Best Ale -- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
