On 04/09/2024 20:41, Daniel K. wrote:
On 7/30/24 17:18, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Mon 29/Jul/2024 23:46:15 +0200 Daniel K. wrote:
5) Overlap in the examples of dmarcbis and failure-reporting
With some wording differences that seem to stem from text being copied,
the worked on in one draft only.
Entire Domain, Monitoring Mode vs.
Entire Domain, Monitoring Only, Per-Message Reports
They're both copied from rfc 7489. They've been added in dmarcbis-31. Should
we just remove them from one of the I-Ds? Which one?
I suggest to keep all examples in dmarcbis. The companion documents can
then define their respective formats without carrying their own DMARC
Policy Record examples.
I have a set of updates nearly ready that does this.
Daniel's pull request for the failure-reporting I-D removes a couple of
appendixes:
A.1. Entire Domain, Monitoring Only, Per-Message Reports, which matches
B.2.2. Entire Domain, Monitoring Mode, Per-Message Reports on dmarcbis,
and
A.2. Per-Message Failure Reports Directed to Third Party, which matches
B.2.3. Per-Message Failure Reports Directed to Third Party on dmarcbis.
Save for objections, I'm gonna merge it on the next occasion.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
