> On Mar 17, 2024, at 9:12 AM, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun 17/Mar/2024 16:50:40 +0100 internet-drafts wrote: >> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-10.txt is now available. It >> is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & >> Conformance (DMARC) WG of the IETF. >> Title: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance >> (DMARC) Failure Reporting >> Authors: Steven M Jones >> Alessandro Vesely >> Name: draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-10.txt >> Pages: 16 >> Dates: 2024-03-17 > > > However we close the fifth point of issue 133[*], I added a new paragraph to > delimit failure reporting scope: > > 3. Other Failure Reports > > This document only describes DMARC failure reports. DKIM failure reports > [RFC6651] and SPF failure reports [RFC6652] are described in their own > documents. A Report Generator issuing a DMARC failure report may or may not > simultaneously issue also a failure report specific to the failed > authentication mechanism, according to its policy. > > It adds RFC665{1,2} as Informative References. > > Keep it? Change it, but how? Strike it? > > > Best > Ale > Do you all think we should mention the decline and fall of the failure report? I think that Yahoo! is the only major MBP that still sends failure reports. I think the others may have stopped over PII concerns.
N _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
