>An Authentication-Results field can list several different DKIM >failures if the message was multiply defined. That makes the other >DKIM-* fields important, as they make it clear which one the report >is covering.
>It would be easy to group repeated DKIM-* fields together, separated >by blank lines, to allow relaying DKIM forensics about each, but >separately. Is that too complex? Hmmn. We already allow multiple groups each consisting of an auth-res header each followed by some other stuff. I suppose we could define subgroups consisting of auth-failure, then dkim-domain, then other stuff. But I worry that people will get it wrong. Presumably an a-r could report multiple failures but you only send a report for the one that is likely to be of interest to the report target, so we need to be sure that the target can tell which failure all the subgroup stuff refers to. I see that the ABNF in section 4 of the draft doesn't update the feedback-report ABNF in section 3.5 of RFC 5965. It better do that or there's no place in an ARF report where the new lines can occur. R's, John _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
