We are already reporting on IP address. including HELO and RevDNS is painless for the evaluator. FcDNS results are useful if available. All of this can be optional, we just need the document to include a place for it to be provided by those who are willing.
Server names are much more useful data than the non-aligned signatures that have been reported for years in a vain attempt to enable forensics. On Sun, Oct 30, 2022, 11:19 AM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On October 30, 2022 10:14:18 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> > wrote: > >On Sat 29/Oct/2022 20:56:57 +0200 Douglas Foster wrote: > >> Host names, both HELO and RevDNS, are not random > > > > > >+1, possibly except for spam, helo names are meaningful. > > > > > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 1:41 AM Murray S. Kucherawy < > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> > >>> I've always considered it to be a random string, because the protocol > allows it to be such. It doesn't necessarily mean or correlate to > >>> anything as far as I can tell. > > > > > >The new protocol seems to be going to acknowledge that receivers may (and > do) discard messages based on helo names. > > > It's still unrelated to DMARC. DMARC reports are not general purpose > forensic documents. They have a specific purpose. Both DKIM and SPF have > specific feedback report types for non-DMARC reporting. At most, I could > see adding an informative mention of the other report formats for other > things. > > Scott K > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
