On Friday, July 19, 2019 11:33:38 AM EDT Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 8:30 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <kb...@drkurt.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> > > > > wrote: > >> If we want to take another run at this and put it in more standard DNS > >> terminology, then maybe: > >> > >> .... a domain for which there is an NXDOMAIN or NODATA response for A, > >> AAAA, > >> and MX records. > >> > >> I think that cures John's concern with my last proposal and addresses > >> yours as > >> well (the response to a CNAME/DNAME is not NODATA/NXDOMAIN, so they are > >> correctly followed). > > > > Yes - I think that will fix my concerns (and John's too). > > Thinking about this from a reporting POV, where would a receiver categorize > messages which ended up with SERVFAIL during the process of DMARC (regular > or PSD)? Would "sp" handling or "np" handling be invoked for SERVFAIL (such > as a broken DNSSEC implementation)?
RFC 7489 says: > Handling of DNS errors when querying for the DMARC policy record is > left to the discretion of the Mail Receiver. In every case where it discusses DNS errors, it leaves it to the receiver to decide. I think it's out of scope for us to do differently. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
