On Wed 10/Aug/2022 17:46:46 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:
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?
I added an example, see
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting/blob/main/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-04.txt#L528
I omit diffs, as the only difference is Appendix A.3 (and I removed an antique
Acknowledgments section).
I just picked a report I received and anonymized it. How is it?
Corrections, fixes and hints welcome.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
