dmarcv1 is a typo in the description (i correctly check for DMARC1,
otherwise this would have shown up earlier);
??
The actual complaint is psd=n; Lemme see if i can make the report more
clear re: where it complained.
Do you maybe have some context on psd=n? I can't find it in 7489.
It's in RFC 9091 and in the DMARC update currently in draft form at the
IETF. The intention was always that you could put private clauses in
DMARC records which get ignored by clients that don't understand them, but
the ABNF was overly clever. That's fixed in the new draft too.
With best regards,
Tobias
On Tue, 2023-02-28 at 17:32 -0500, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Tobias Fiebig via mailop <[email protected]> said:
Heho,
after our paper on mail sending configurations some time ago [1],
we
now glued that together into a self-service site:
https://email-security-scans.org/
I'd be happy to hear your feedback, especially if things do not
work as
expected (then, your test ID and ideally stored emails would be
really
helpful,
It's complaining that my DMARC record is invalid because it doesn't
start with "v=DKIMv1". What?
Test ID ttada96061gfwnvbuthbycansr5h34
R's,
John
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
