Replying to one question posed below. Eliding the other content...
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:55 AM Martin Dürst via Datatracker <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Reviewer: Martin Dürst
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am the assigned Internationalization Directorate (i18ndir) reviewer for
> this
> draft. Harald Alvestrand and Pete Resnik contributed to this review.
>
> <elided>
>
> Major/intermediate issues:
> =========================
>
> The Abstract mentions the Authentication-Results header field, but the
> text doesn't.
>
> Section 4, %{s} and %{l} macros in SPF: The draft says that these cannot
> be used for local parts that contain non-ASCII characters. This may be
> enough for this draft, but is this a problem that should be fixed in the
> longer term? How widely are %{s} and %{l} macros used currently?
>
Based on a dataset that is currently a couple of years old, surveying about
12M domains that were in current use at that time, there were 75 using the
%{s} macro and 139 using %{l}. So I think it's a safe generalization to say
that they are not widely used. From a cursory inspection, it appears that
the general use case is for logging anomalies through query records
employing the "exists" SPF mechanism.
--Kurt Andersen
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
