Re: [dmarc-ietf] Errata for Aggregate Reporting

2024-03-24 Thread John Levine
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said: >On Sun 24/Mar/2024 18:06:53 +0100 John Levine wrote: >> It appears that Brotman, Alex said: >> >>>https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5774 :: There were a number of edits >>>for clarification to this portion of the document. The "otherwise specified"

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Errata for Aggregate Reporting

2024-03-24 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Sun 24/Mar/2024 18:06:53 +0100 John Levine wrote: It appears that Brotman, Alex said: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5774 :: There were a number of edits for clarification to this portion of the document. The "otherwise specified" language is no longer there, and I believe all

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Errata for Aggregate Reporting

2024-03-24 Thread John Levine
It appears that Brotman, Alex said: >There were a few errata for the aggregate reporting. I wanted to confirm with >the list that these are still valid. > >https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5440 :: I thought it had been determined >the ";" was not necessary. It was required in 7489 but not

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7489 (7865)

2024-03-24 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Sat 23/Mar/2024 19:53:39 +0100 John Levine wrote: It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said: -=-=-=-=-=- This seems like it's probably legitimate. Does it need to be fixed in the -bis document? It's already fixed in the current markdown. FYI, the XML pattern is silly. It forbids

Re: [dmarc-ietf] of course no DMARC result for DKIM testing and policy

2024-03-24 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Fri 22/Mar/2024 19:22:10 +0100 John R. Levine wrote: While I generally agree, DMARC for the last decade didn't have a testing flag.  That's new in DMARCbis, so I don't think that's really germane. This particular thing is on us as a working group. RFC 6376 makes it quite clear on page 28

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Policy Override in aggregate-reporting

2024-03-24 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Fri 22/Mar/2024 23:23:55 +0100 Matthäus Wander wrote: RFC7489 contains a description of the possible PolicyOverrideType values: While aggregate-reporting-14 uses the same set of values, the description is missing. I suggest to add it

[dmarc-ietf] Messages from the dmarc list for the week ending Sun Mar 24 06:00:04 2024

2024-03-24 Thread John Levine
Count| Bytes | Who ++--- 56 ( 100%) | 437345 ( 100%) | Total 9 (16.1%) | 63038 (14.4%) | Scott Kitterman 9 (16.1%) | 54473 (12.5%) | Alessandro Vesely 9 (16.1%) | 50879 (11.6%) | John Levine 8 (14.3%) | 54502 (12.5%) | Matthäus