Chair here... > On Tue, 9 Aug 2022, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > I agree with John, I think, that the amount of time we should spend > > improving failure reporting should be proportional to how much it's used, > > or how much the community is asking us to do so. ... > > My small mail system gets failure reports every day, sometimes just two or > three, sometimes several dozen, generally depending on how much mail I've > sent to large lists like NANOG or ietf@ietf. Mike tells us that there's > reports we don't see, sent by private agreement. > > I think that's enough that we should leave it in. I also see a fair > number of reports in wrong format, a consistent wrong format starting with > "A message claiming to be from you has failed the published DMARC > policy for your domain." from at least two reporters which tells me that > there is a DMARC implementation that got the format wrong. > > Hence I think we should try to improve the description of the report > format, with examples, to make it easier to explain to people how to get > the format right. I do not think we should change the spec.
As chair, I agree with John here: we have the document on our queue and we should wrap it up and get it out. But we should not spend a great deal of time on it. Ale, are you ready to do the edits and move it forward? Or would you prefer to have someone else take it over? What's your thought on getting it finished with a small bit of effort? Barry _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
