According to Scott Kitterman <[email protected]>: >>That usage has proven to work quite well. And some respect for the installed >>base wouldn't hurt. > >The alternative I suggested is 100% compatible with the installed base. If a >domain has published DMARC policy per RFC 7489, the proposed new approach will >still find it. I agree that something which would require existing DMARC >records to be changed would be a non-starter. > >I'm not sure how much more respectful we can manage to be.
I'd say it's 99.4% compatible with the existing usage. If you have _dmarc.x.foo.com _dmarc.foo.com and you have a message from [email protected], the current scheme will skip up to _dmarc.foo.com while a tree walk will find _dmarc.x.foo.com. I doubt that will make any difference in practice. If there really are any situations like that, who knows what they think it does now. R's, John -- Regards, John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
