On 9/30/24 10:53, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Sun 29/Sep/2024 23:16:46 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
In Section 4.7, just out of curiosity, how much have we observed use
of the
"fo" tag in the wild?
...
In fact, RFCs 6651/2 provide their own ra= tags to specify a reporting
address, so if fo= only uses "d" and "s" values, it would make sense
to set fo= without ruf=.
Requiring ruf= makes sense only if the only reports considered are
those described in dmarc-failure-reporting.
The following figures are for validly-formatted DMARC policies observed
in DNS before and after June 2024*, that included the "fo=" tag with a
value specified in RFC7489.
"fo=" Tag
Total Records
Records w/o "ruf" tag
fo=1
6,753,358 442,976
fo=0
563,852 347,126
fo=s
17,787 3,237
fo=d
5,885 691
The total (7,340,882) is a bit less than one third of all
validly-formatted DMARC policies observed in DNS before and after June 2024.
--S.
* In other words, any policies published for the first time after June
2024 would not be included. Any policies published before June 2024 that
were not still returned by a DNS query after June would not be included.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
