Thanks for you input John. I know the difference between missing and empty. Most (larger) organizations omit the element completely (zoho.com, google.com, linkedin.com, mail.ru, comcast.net, Yahoo! Inc.). Only 34 percent of all DMARC report generating organizations publish reports with an empty envelope_from (stats based on last 7 days).
If we agree that messages with a 'null reverse-path' should be included in reports, than Appendix C should state that this element is mandatory but can be empty. Another solution would be to allow the element to be omitted, saving bytes (personal preference). Are these non-delivery notifications, delivery status notifications and message disposition notifications useful in DMARC reports? If so, than we have to agree on how to report these messages and make the appendix clearer so that there can be no misinterpretation. -- Freddie Leeman -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: John Levine [mailto:[email protected]] Verzonden: dinsdag 6 augustus 2019 22:24 Aan: [email protected] CC: [email protected] Onderwerp: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Should 'undeliverable mail' be included in DMARC rua reports? In article <[email protected]> you write: >I've noticed that, even though RFC7489 appendix C states that the >'envelope_from' element has a minOccurs of '1', this element is missing >quite frequently. It's not missing, it's empty. That's not the same thing. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
