On 12/30/20 8:22 AM, Dotzero wrote:
DMARC != Auth-res. Auth-res provides all kinds of useful
information than just pass/fail. For DMARC Auth-res should provide
what the policy was at a bare minimum. But none of this seems to
have any normative language anywhere which is a problem unto
itself. DMARC in auth-res seems to be an orphan.
Mike
You just stated the case as to why this discussion should be ruled out
of scope. " DMARC != Auth-res." and " DMARC in auth-res seems to be
an orphan"
This is the IETF DMARC working group, not the AUTH-RES working group.
You gave the example of someone writing a crappy Thunderbird extension
as a reason for the working group to change its focus. Perhaps getting
the extension author to fix their extension might be a more fruitful
effort.
Because the author *can't* fix their extension for the 100th time. There
is no normative mechanism for transporting the DMARC state in the
auth-res header. And if the working group is not willing to do its part
for auth res, then auth-res should just be moved to historic since there
is nobody to maintain it, and no place to discuss its shortcomings.
Requiring every downstream MTA and MUA to do DMARC policy checks would
be a mess and *that* is most certainly in scope as scaling is an
internet issue.
Mike
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
