On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 12:04 PM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed 05/Nov/2025 17:57:33 +0100 Al Iverson wrote: > > > > I think it was overkill to remove (sometimes referred to as "forensic > > reports") from section 7. I don't know enough to know if there's an > > IETF terminology reason to remove that, but assuming not, my > > recommendation is to restore it, just because it helps drive > > understanding -- driving the connection that regardless of which term > > is used, that's what we're ultimately referring to. Meaning, it > > bridges an understanding gap, and that's generally a positive thing. > > Todd asked for it to be removed, because the word "forensic" doesn't appear in > either DMARCbis or the Aggregate Reporting document. > > If we want to restore it, it should be after the first occurrence of the term > "Failure reports", in the Introduction.
Thank you for this. Not sure that I have much of a strong opinion on this after all, the more I think about it. I think I'll let that go unless others pipe up with a strong opinion. > > Also in section 7, I don't understand this statement: "On the other > > hand, a Domain Owner publishing an internal Report Consumer, can put a > > dot-forward at that mailbox." Could somebody ELI5? I mean, I know what > > email forwarding is, and I understand most of these words, but I think > > there's context missing. (I'd also suggest rewording it to not use the > > inside baseball term "dot-forward," but I'm not able to offer a > > rewrite because I'm missing something about the broader context of the > > statement.) > > Section 7.2 speculates on the recipient type indicated in the ruf=tag. It > prompts report generator to consider the recipient type they are sending > reports to. Invoking dot-forward warns that, in any case, the information a > report generator reads from the DMARC Policy record may not include all end > recipients. Thank you for explaining! My suggestion would be a reword like: "On the other hand, a Domain Owner publishing an Internal Report Consumer could be publishing a destination address that is actually some time of forwarding address, meaning that a report's final destination may not be guaranteed." Or something like that. Though I grant how saying "dot forward" is a concise way of explaining that to an email nerd, I am not totally sure that's how you'd want to write a technical document about it. Anybody agree/disagree? Cheers, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson // 312-725-0130 // Chicago http://www.spamresource.com // Deliverability http://www.aliverson.com // All about me https://xnnd.com/calendar // Book my calendar _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
