Hello, these are already now two ESC: 2.7.30 and 5.7.30. X.7.30 means in both cases, that DMARC validation failed.
For a domain with policy p=reject; pct=0 the mail is delivered (250 2.7.30), despite failed DMARCр and for a domain with p=reject; pct=100 when DMARC failed and the mail is rejected (550 5.7.30). Please propose a different wording, I do not see a contradiction in my wording. Who will use it? I asked, why failure reports are not sent by some sites, and would the ones, who do not send failure reports, use the X.7.30 code. (Thus, if for failure reports there are concerns, while for ESC X.7.30 there are no concerns). I expect that at least parties who want to fix their DMARC/DKIM implementation will use it. The aggregate reports provide hints, that the DKIM implementation does not work. This ESC is not meant as a shortcut to collecting a lot of reports and analyzing them, it is a mean to act when no reports are sent. Regards Дилян On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 23:06 +0200, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: > On 02-08-19 22:54, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > The wording you're using seems inconsistent to me.. Specifically, > > you're saying that x.7.30 means one thing when attached to a > > 200-series reply, but the opposite when attached to a 500-series > > reply. I would prefer to see two separate codes if you're going to do > > this. > > > > But the bigger question is implementation. Who would make use of > > this, either as a sender or a receiver? > > a receiver could assist a sender in adjusting its egress mail process > without the need for the receiver to collect a lot of DMARC reports and > analyse them. A sender could use it to improve its outbound mailflow. I > doubt however whether anyone will implement this as it assists possible > adversaries as well... > > /rolf > _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
