[opendmarc-dev] draft: patch to implement an override mechanism for MLMs

[Juri Haberland]

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, May 26, 2016 12:20:22 PM Juri Haberland wrote:

>> The values defined in section 3.2.2 are:
>> "delivered" / "spam" / "policy" / "reject" / "other"
>>
>> Shall we map like this:
>> NONE      -> delivered
>> QURANTINE -> policy
>> REJECT    -> reject
>>
>> Or do we use "adisposition" verbatim?
>>
>> Unfortunately RFC 6591 is not updated to support DMARC...
>
> RFC 6591 doesn't need updating directly as the DMARC RFC itself contains the
> new information needed to generate AR header fields for DMARC.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#page-42

Ah, thanks, I'll look into this.

> Since this is a failure report, why isn't the Delivery-Result always reject?
>
> Delivery-Result is for the delivery result, not the result of DMARC
> processing.  The result of DMARC goes in the AR field.

Are we supposed to only send failure reports if we do not deliver the mail? I
thought for DMARC, a failure report is always sent if authentification fails,
regardless of the delivery result (at least section 7.3 of RFC 7489 seems to
state this).

  Juri