Hey Michiel! I've got a couple queued up, yes. Very cool!
A few things I've noticed: - I'm not sure how to map the 'na' result. Since this isn't a valid response, it's a bit of a wart. I'll likely create another result just for it. - The sample I'm looking at has "<disposition>strict</disposition>" in the <policy_evaluated> section. Spec says it should be "DispositionType" (none/quarantine/reject). I'm not sure what "strict" can mean in this context. - The attachments are encoded as 'application/octet-stream', which is sort of a PITA. Different than the missing 'Content-Disposition'. I'll likely not import these right now, due to the "strict" result being nonsensical. Everything else can be worked around. Stoked at Hotmail coming online! =- Tim On Nov 13, 2012, at 6:00 AM, Michiel van de Vis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello everybody! > > We've just received the first DMARC aggregate record from Hotmail.com. > > The e-mails are missing a 'Content-Disposition' header with the report-part > which could result in parse-errors. > > Furthermore the 'result' column of the record > auth_results > spf/dkim > > result column can contain the value 'na'. > I don't know if this is an allowed value in this column. > > Did anybody else receive a report and do you have other feedback? > > Great to see that Hotmail is also starting to adapt to DMARC. >
_______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
