On Thu 12/Mar/2020 03:05:15 +0100 Scott Kitterman wrote: > If the chairs are up for it, I'd like to publish a revision to the draft that > fixes the typo mentioned on the list two weeks ago and adds mil to the list > of > participating PSDs (they have published a record since the last draft update).
Hey, that's true: ale@pcale:~ dig _dmarc.mil txt ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY; status: NOERROR; id: 15461 ;; Flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1; ANSWER: 1; AUTHORITY: 6; ADDITIONAL: 6 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;; _dmarc.mil. IN TXT ;; ANSWER SECTION: _dmarc.MIL. 21600 IN TXT "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=none; np=reject; rua=mailto:[email protected]"; ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: mil. 172800 IN NS pac1.nipr.mil. mil. 172800 IN NS eur2.nipr.mil. mil. 172800 IN NS con1.nipr.mil. mil. 172800 IN NS pac2.nipr.mil. mil. 172800 IN NS eur1.nipr.mil. mil. 172800 IN NS con2.nipr.mil. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: con1.nipr.mil. 172800 IN A 199.252.157.234 con2.nipr.mil. 172800 IN A 199.252.162.234 eur1.nipr.mil. 172800 IN A 199.252.154.234 eur2.nipr.mil. 172800 IN A 199.252.143.234 pac1.nipr.mil. 172800 IN A 199.252.180.234 pac2.nipr.mil. 172800 IN A 199.252.155.234 If they can do it, _dmarc.bank should be publishable as well, shouldn't it? > I can also explicitly import organizational domain from RFC 7489 as recently > discussed. +1 Best Ale -- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
