Closed ietf-svn-bot closed 3 years ago
@todd.herr@valimail.com commented
Regarding the fo= tag usage, the following was reported in ticket #4:
A survey of nearly 74,000 DMARC records that Valimail has scanned found that just 316 (0.42%) were using the colon-separated list as a value to their 'fo' tag.
Other interesting numbers from the 73,917 domains...
5,906 with a value of '1'
517 with a value of '0'
74 with a value of 's'
11 with a value of 'd'
128 with a value of '1:d:s'
115 with a value of '0:1:d:s'
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed status from new
to accepted
@todd.herr@valimail.com set owner to todd.herr@valimail.com
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed status from accepted
to started
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed status from started
to infoneeded
@todd.herr@valimail.com commented
Proposed text to deprecate rf=. Left fo= alone.
Pushed to github and merged to main branch.
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed status from infoneeded
to assigned
@todd.herr@valimail.com commented
Consensus from 27 May 2021 Interim (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2021-dmarc-01-202105270900/) and the working group mailing list (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/psW6Ad8FRZ1ynRlskQsrQSTpVsQ/) is to remove the rf tag from the base spec.
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed status from assigned
to closed
@todd.herr@valimail.com set resolution to fixed-consensus
owner:todd.herr@valimail.com
resolution_fixed-consensus
type_defect
| by johnl@taugh.comThe only valid value for rf= is rf=afrf. It appears unlikely that there will ever be a report format other than ARF, so deprecate this tag.
I do not know how widely the fo= tag is implemented, asking for more failure reports. Seeing how few reporters produce any failure reports at all this might go, too.
Issue migrated from trac:82 at 2022-01-24 16:52:04 +0000