Maybe it is time to rethink this, or open a more official dialogue. I understand folks don't want to send reports. I understand the privacy issue. However, without these reports, or at least *some* information sent regarding the unaligned emails, we are at an impasse to migrating to a 'reject'. For certain environments (e.g. financial), we cannot reject *any* legitimate emails and therefore require verification of all emails that are rejected.
I would be perfectly fine with limiting the information if people are really that paranoid about header information. For example: date, receiving server information, originating smtp server sender, and subject line. This would be a good start at least. Let's make DMARC powerful and efficient instead of a "cool idea". John On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 6:02 PM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > >Any comments on this? > > I doubt it would make any difference. People don't send reports > because they don't want to send reports, not because the reports are > too big. As someone else noted, the privacy issues are just as bad > with the headers. > > R's, > John >
_______________________________________________ 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)
