On June 11, 2020 6:28:13 PM UTC, Steven M Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.
I think it's entirely sensible to assess demand before investing a lot of time
in this. I do not, however, think all opinions are equal on this topic. We
know senders would like to see the feedback. Autumn Tyr-Salvia's presentation
of the issue during the interim was clear and concise. I think the real
question on this issue is for receivers. Is there anyone working that side of
the equation that would be inspired to send some kind of limited feedback
report where they send none now is they had clearer examples to work from.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
