The primary thing I’m seeing is reporting using a format that seems to be pre-1.0. I’m assuming this because the first child of the feedback element is not a version element (there is no version element at all).
If I ignore this, then I’m seeing a number of missing elements in reports: - policy_published does not have sp or fo children - identifiers does not have an envelope_from child - the spf element in auth_results does not have a scope child - auth_results, report_metadata, policy_evaluated, and record all are sequences, meaning child elements have to appear in a specific order, yet they appear in other orders in the reports I’ve also seen the value for p or sp be reported as an empty string rather than one of none, quarantine, or reject. I’ve got work arounds in code for all of these, but it would be quite useful to have some of the missing data. Thanks, Peter > On Feb 12, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Franck Martin <fmar...@linkedin.com> wrote: > > State here the bugs you find, we are all ears... > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Peter Bowen via dmarc-discuss > <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org <mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>> wrote: > Thanks, that is really helpful. > > It would be really nifty to add a “DMARC 1.0 compliance” percentage next to > each sender. I’m seeing lots of reports that don’t follow the XML format > defined in the RFC. > > Thanks, > Peter > >> On Feb 10, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Matt Vernhout <dmarcl...@emailkarma.net >> <mailto:dmarcl...@emailkarma.net>> wrote: >> >> This is a fairly good list of potential DMARC senders: >> https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-status/ <https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-status/> >> >> Cheers, >> >> ~ >> MATT VERNHOUT >> Founder, Editor >> >> EmailKarma.net <http://ekma.co/16G2Htm> >> It's not the size of your list, it's how you use it! >> >> My profiles: <http://ekma.co/1GrpgS5> <http://ekma.co/1bSPqy0> >> <http://ekma.co/16G2GFC> <http://ekma.co/16G2Htm> <http://ekma.co/1aqglmS> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Peter Bowen via dmarc-discuss >> <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org <mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>> wrote: >> Does anyone maintain a list of receivers known to send DMARC reports? I >> enabled DMARC reporting for a domain we use for sending and have gotten >> reports so far from 126.com <http://126.com/>, AOL, Belgacom, CapitalOne, >> Cisco, Comcast, FastMail, Google, Infor, Microsoft, mail.ru >> <http://mail.ru/>, NetEase (163.com <http://163.com/>), QQ,and Yahoo. >> >> From these reports, I’ve seen a number of different variations that do not >> follow the XML Schema in RFC 7489. I know there is the DMARC WG at IETF, >> but I haven’t seen any updates on the core spec, so I’m hoping someone >> implementing DMARC may have sorted out what is considered acceptable. >> >> Thanks, >> Peter >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc-discuss mailing list >> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org <mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> >> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss >> <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 >> <http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html>) >> > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc-discuss mailing list > dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org <mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss > <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 <http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html>) >
_______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org 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)
