Please open a ticket, agreed that standardization here is a good thing. I have some further thoughts as an individual once the ticket is opened.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 19:16 John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think there is a ticket for this, but it would be nice if > there were standard ways to put a few more items into the DMARC part > of an A-R header, in particular the p= and pct= values and the > location of the policy record if it's not the same as header.from. > > None of the existing ptypes really apply here (in particular "policy" is > for local policy, not a policy you found somewhere else.) Perhaps call > it polrec for policy record and add polrec.p polrec.pct and polrec.domain. > > I have never understood all of the indirection involved in defining > stuff for A-R but I'm hoping Murray can help out. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > -- *Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies *e:* [email protected] *p:* 415.273.8818 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
