On Fri 12/Aug/2022 18:26:26 +0200 John R Levine wrote:
I'd change text/rfc822-headers to message/rfc822 and add ther a message body
or something like [ Message body was here ]
Why? I chose a body-less example as it looks more privacy-friendly.
I'd rather it be more general, to show where all of the plausible parts go.
Message/rfc822 is not more general, is just different. If I implemented
failure reporting, I'd choose text/rfc822-headers (and heavy redaction) to
reduce PII leakage as much as possible.
For another point, should I redact the addresses? How? Possibilities:
Just change them to something like [email protected]. It's an example. They don't
matter.
I've anonymized it already, the question is if it's useful to blatantly redact
stuff ([email protected] or RFC 6590) so as to encourage readers to implement
redaction.
By the way, it looks like you edited this into the XML rather than the markdown
source. It would be nice to have the markdown available for future edits.
I agree. However, the md file in the repository is strange as it contains
stuff which should be generated. So I edited the -02.xml retrieved from
datatracker. Author-tools.ietf.org doesn't seem to be able to convert .xml to
.md. I'll have to look for a conversion tool.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
