On 5/20/2020 2:43 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Transaction? I thought we were talking about aggregate reports.
So am I.
There are no transactions there.
Really?
Each SMTP session can be considered a transaction. You are provided
results on the these DMARC processed transaction.
I mean, what is the CSV format of the following report, that I sent yesterday
for this list:
Sorry, if I ignored it.
Forgetting fact that you can your report easier to read for consumers,
these would be an example of the CSV field headers.
CSV headers:
report_metadata.org_name, report_metadata.email,
report_metadata.report_id, report_metadata.date_range.begin,
report_metadata.date_range.end
Policy_Published.domain, Policy_Published.adkim,
Policy_Published.aspf, Policy_Published.p
record.row, record.row.source_ip.record.count.
record.row.policy_evaluated, record.row.policy_evaluated.disposition,
record.row,policy_evaluated.disposition,
record.row.policy_evaluated.dkim, record.row.policy_evaluated.spf
Note: You don't have to stick to redundant "name space" field names.
... Can we get back to work, please?
Sorry, but I consider a rude, disrespectful and ignorant statement, to be
saying that.
No personal attack intended. I'm being rude because I have the impression that
you are not defending a concrete, well defined need, but instead find new
arguments opportunistically to pursue a vague sense of format fashion.
That's a personal attack. If you don't understand the proposal, you
should back off or ask for clarification.
You
shifted from an asserted necessity of producers to a possible desire of
consumers.
I did no such thing. I won't repeat it, but it appears you didn't
understand the proposal.
Now you introduce formats like CSV which make no sense in DMARC
context.
I disagree. See above.
I hold that CSV cannot satisfy DMARC requirements.
Hold it all you want. You know it would not be true. See above.
? Please do contradict me by
showing us how an aggregate report in CSV would look like, as well as some
ideas for defining the corresponding template, similar to what Appendix C of
RFC 7489 specifies for XML.
Ok, I won't but if you don't understand the proposal, you should ask
for clarification.
CSV can work, so can JSON. Limiting it and locking it down to XML
only would be a limitation. You can agree or not agree with that.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
