On 12/Mar/12 08:28, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > Got a reply: He found the text ambiguous about whether the report > is generated per signature, or per tag within a signature that went > awry somehow. > > The one-report-per-domain-per-message thing satisfies his concern > and will clear the DISCUSS.
The correct clarification is one report per /signing/ domain per message. If a domain includes multiple signatures in a given message, they may get a report for each failed one. > The other one is indeed orthogonal. I'd be fine with leaving it in, > however, unless someone sees a problem with doing so. I agree unrecognized tags might be interesting, e.g. as a tool to monitor verifiers' adoption of new tags. However, if a domain decided to add such tag, there's nothing they can do about those reports, except encouraging verifiers to upgrade their software. Perhaps, it makes sense to keep "all" the default, but require rr=all:u to also get unrecognized tags reports. Would those reports need to be routed to a different team/script? Should they be tagged, say, Feedback-Type: auth-feedback, rather than auth-failure? Just fancying... _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
