On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 3:49 PM Olivier Hureau < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > dmarc-fo = "fo" *WSP "=" *WSP ( "0" / "1" / ( "d" / "s" / "d:s" / > "s:d" ) ) > > What about domain owner that have a value that is not listed there ? ex: > "1:d" or even "1:d:s" ? (4.59% of explicit fo tags, from my measurements) > > > Even though RFC 7489 allowed them, values such as "1:d" (generate a failure report if any auth mechanism failed or if DKIM failed) or "1:d:s" (any, dkim, spf) make no sense, because 1 implies d and s. I'd rather see the description of the "fo" tag cleaned up to stress this. -- *Todd Herr * | Technical Director, Standards and Ecosystem *e:* [email protected] *m:* 703.220.4153 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
