#82 closed defect (fixed-consensus)

Deprecate rf= and maybe fo= tag

Reported by: johnl@… Owned by: todd.herr@…
Priority: minor Milestone:
Component: dmarc-bis Version:
Severity: - Keywords:
Cc:

Description

The 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.

Change History (6)

comment:1 Changed 17 months ago by todd.herr@…

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'

comment:2 Changed 16 months ago by todd.herr@…

  • Owner set to todd.herr@…
  • Status changed from new to accepted

comment:3 Changed 16 months ago by todd.herr@…

  • Status changed from accepted to started

comment:4 Changed 16 months ago by todd.herr@…

  • Status changed from started to infoneeded

Proposed text to deprecate rf=. Left fo= alone.

Pushed to github and merged to main branch.

comment:5 Changed 14 months ago by todd.herr@…

  • Status changed from infoneeded to assigned

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.

comment:6 Changed 14 months ago by todd.herr@…

  • Resolution set to fixed-consensus
  • Status changed from assigned to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.