In the WG Interim Session, I had given a "+1" to Autumn Tyr-Salvia's
comment about redacted failure reports being better than no failure reports.
I also suggested that perhaps potential failure report generators would
be encouraged if they could see examples of reports with different
levels of redaction. This would be as opposed to only seeing "reports
SHOULD include as much of the message and message header as is
reasonable" in RFC7489 section 7.3, and deciding to avoid a potential
headache.
Whether these examples would best be delivered through the DMARCbis
appendix, the DMARC Usage draft (currently "parked"), or an effort more
aligned with the ARF family of specs, I am not sure.
If there's a desire to see this, I'm willing to try to put something
together.
--S.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
