Currently defined policy discovery https://tools.ietf.org/html/
rfc7489#section-6.6.3
This begs the question (for which a real example now exists): what if a
listed suffix (TLD?) itself has a DMARC record? Is the intent and expected
behaviour that the TLD entry override all instances where a reco
Considering that the qld.gov.au record includes an sp tag, I'd say that
they intend and expect that the TLD entry does exactly that - puts DMARC
reporting in place for all subdomains that don't have their own record.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Tomki Camp
wrote:
> Currently defined policy di
Apologies for the top-posting, but this is exactly the scenario that has
been discussed earlier on the list:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc/current/msg04151.html as well
as during the recent IETF101 meeting:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-101-dmarc/
The problem really is (at
Kurt,
As you note, this issue has been discussed on-list (and off) a few times.
And it definitely seems clear that some sort of modification to the lookup
algorithm would be required to address the issue.
As part of that discussion, there are a few scenarios that I think should
be considered:
1.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Peter M. Goldstein <
peter.m.goldst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kurt,
>
> As you note, this issue has been discussed on-list (and off) a few times.
> And it definitely seems clear that some sort of modification to the lookup
> algorithm would be required to address the
Hmm, I guess this means the set of required/optional fields now stretches
between the DKIM and ARC specs, eh?
Is t the only one that's now optional?
For Seal, I have i, a, s, d, b, cv (removed t based on this thread)
For AMS, I have i, a, s, c, d, d, b, h, bh
Brandon
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:05
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> Hmm, I guess this means the set of required/optional fields now stretches
> between the DKIM and ARC specs, eh?
>
> Is t the only one that's now optional?
>
> For Seal, I have i, a, s, d, b, cv (removed t based on this thread)
> For AMS, I hav
