On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:47 AM Freddie Leeman <freddie= [email protected]> wrote:
> I’ve been processing millions of DMARC aggregate reports from a lot of > different organizations, and have been trying to make sense of them for > quite some time now. I’ve noticed that most of them, even those from large > parties like Google and Yahoo!, fail to follow the DMARC RFC guidelines > (Appendix C. DMARC XML Schema). I’ve written a blog about this that can be > found here: > https://www.uriports.com/blog/dmarc-reports-ietf-rfc-compliance/ > > > > The bottom line is that the RFC 7489 Appendix C is a mess and contradicts > itself numerous times in both schema and comments. I think it’s important > to be clearer and stricter about the xml elements and their values. Too > much of this section is open to interpretation. > Freddie, Thanks for your observations - would you mind proposing concrete language to replace Appendix C? Speaking from experience, it can be helpful to be able to do in-place comments/markup so I've posted http://bit.ly/dmarc-rpt-schema - please make any adjustments in "Suggest" mode or comments you feel appropriate. The invitation extends to all members of this group. --Kurt Andersen
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
