On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, Daniel K. wrote:
On 12/9/24 18:37, John R Levine wrote:
Once again, we are not the Network Police. If we make the fields
mandatory, that means that reports that are missing them but are otherwise
OK are ill formed and should presumably be discarded. Why would that be a
good idea?
Implementing DMARCbis and new aggregate reporting should go hand in
hand. The new stuff in DMARCbis should be reflected in the new reports.
E.g. the "np" and "discovery_method" tags should be the reports,
Sure.
and mandatory.
Once again, why? What benefit is there to discarding reports that don't
have them?
Presumably, no one will just implement new aggregate reporting on top of
existing RFC 7489 DMARC. And, presumably, no one will update to
DMARCbis, but keep the old aggregate reporting mechanism in place.
People will update in all sorts of haphazard ways. (I should know.) Some
may get around to some parts before they get to others.
Why should we try as much as possible to be backward compatible in the
aggregate reporting XML format?
Um, so that people can continue to accept the reports they actually get?
R's,
John
PS. we need to add the "np" element to PolicyPublishedType.
Sure, send in a pull request.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
