On Wed 12/Jul/2023 12:54:38 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 3:29:34 AM EDT Baptiste Carvello wrote:
...
Why? Because it's brittle and will only bring them more headaches? At
the very least, DMARC would need to use its own 5xy reply code to avoid
the need for parsing the reply text…
This is a very good point. The IANA Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
Enhanced Status Codes Registry [1] has codes for SPF and DKIM (RFC 7372) and
ARC (RFC 8617), but not DMARC. Adding one is not currently in the DMARCbis
draft, but I think it should be.
+1; still, having the word "DMARC" in the text greatly simplifies parsing logs.
I noted that Baptiste wrote 5xx, not 5.x.x. 5xx has to be 550 methinks.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
