The only possible value is "helo", which we just removed. (See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/9RO1vASQ6N0Yt2oEXBy0u1ZYD8g/.)
If we only accept "mfrom", the only reason to have a scope field is for
backward compatibility. Do we care?
Best
Ale
On Mon 25/Nov/2024 19:07:35 +0100 Brotman, Alex wrote:
It's possible that other values could be added later? That's the best I've got.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel K. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting - SPF scope
In RFC 7489, "scope" in SPFAuthResultType was required, and possible valued was
"helo" and "mfrom".
In the draft, "scope" is optional, and the only possible value is: mfrom.
Should we remove it?
--- a/dmarc-xml-0.2.xsd
+++ b/dmarc-xml-0.2.xsd
@@ -227,13 +227,6 @@
</xs:all>
</xs:complexType>
-<!-- SPF domain scope. -->
-<xs:simpleType name="SPFDomainScope">
- <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
- <xs:enumeration value="mfrom"/>
- </xs:restriction>
-</xs:simpleType>
-
<!-- SPF verification result, according to RFC 7208 Section 2.6. -->
<xs:simpleType name="SPFResultType">
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
@@ -254,9 +247,6 @@
<!-- The checked domain. -->
<xs:element name="domain" type="xs:string"
minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
- <!-- The scope of the checked domain. -->
- <xs:element name="scope" type="SPFDomainScope"
- minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
<!-- The SPF verification result. -->
<xs:element name="result" type="SPFResultType"
minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
Daniel K.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
