Thanks for doing this work. It cleans up a messy corner of DMARC. It appears that OLIVIER HUREAU <olivier.hur...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr> said: >I was personally thinking about the following options: > >1) Specify Version "2" ... > >2) Explore a JSON Format for Aggregated Reports: ... > >3) Create an Extended XML Schema for Interoperability: >Developing an extended XML schema that ensures interoperability across all >versions could be a comprehensive solution. >I have identified a working draft ( [ >https://github.com/jorritfolmer/TA-dmarc/blob/master/bin/dmarc/rua_ta_dmarc_relaxed_v01.xsd > | >https://github.com/jorritfolmer/TA-dmarc/blob/master/bin/dmarc/rua_ta_dmarc_relaxed_v01.xsd > ] ) >that demonstrates promise, having resulted in approximately 10 times fewer >reports with errors. > >I am inclined towards the third option as it offers a holistic approach to >interoperability.
If we were starting from scratch, 1 or 2 would be worth considering but as you suggest, at this point nobody would do it. So I agree that it makes sense to build a schema that matches the reports people are sending. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
