You could surely arrange to send yourself such an email. If you need a real domain that would be covered by an existing PSD record, virginia.gov is right there.
Scott K On October 14, 2022 11:48:18 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: >On Thu 13/Oct/2022 15:48:55 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: >> There is no report; this paragraph is all the report we have (and I think >> it’s all we will get and all we need). > > >Hm... Indeed, I searched old mail logs and found no evidence that one of the >domains (bank|gov|insurance|gov.uk|police.uk|mil|gov.in) was ever a target of >an aggregate report from me. However, I ascribe this lack of logs to the >likely circumstance that I never received messages reportable to them, rather >than hypothesizing that my implementation was wrong. > > >Best >Ale > > >> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 5:49 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed 12/Oct/2022 22:44:10 +0200 Todd Herr wrote: >>>> At Barry's request, I added a couple sentences to section 7.3 to talk >>>> about why >>>> this document obsoletes RFC 9091. >>> >>> This: >>> >>> The DNS Tree Walk also incorporates PSD policy discovery, which was >>> introduced in [RFC9091]. [RFC9091] was an Experimental RFC, and the >>> results of that experiment were that the RFC was not implemented as >>> written. Instead, this document redefines the algorithm for PSD >>> policy discovery, and thus obsoletes [RFC9091]. >>> >>> I missed the report about the experiment results. Any pointer? > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >dmarc mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
