It appears that Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> said: >Somewhat later than I had hoped, I've taken a shot at this. Please see the >attached proposed update from dmarcbis-06 and rfcdiff.
Closer but of course, not quite right. >2. In the policy discovery section I added a few sentences on which policy to >use once the policy record is identified. This doesn't change anything >relative to what's currently defined, but it seems to me that if we are going >to have a discussion of policy discovery we should take it all the way to >determining the poilcy and not stop at the determination of the record to use >to determine the policy. It still gets the wrong answer for psd=n above psd=y. I think it needs to say you walk up. At each step if you find psd=n, that is the org domain and you stop. If you find psd=y, that is the PSD, the org is the name beneath it, and you stop. (If the one beneath it has no DMARC record, is it still the org domain? I think it is.) If you get to the top and there was no record with psd=y or psd=n, the org is the highest DMARC record you found. This means if you find psd=n or psd=y you stop, if you find psd=u keep going. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
