Re: [dmarc-ietf] Dmarcbis way forward

MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT make little difference. Both are the Crocker Proposal revived and simplified: "The solution to authentication problems MUST be LESS AUTHENTICATION!"If you can convince nearly all senders to use p=NONE, and if you can convince nearly all evaluators to enforce only when

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

On 11/15/23 02:12, OLIVIER HUREAU wrote: As mentioned here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ouSBtpMhD5KJp2osPfUXJktuoMQ/ I have found out that the current reporting ecosystem uses two types of XML Schema

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Dmarcbis way forward

I’m a little slow responding to this; my apologies for that. On 23 Oct 2023, at 1:03, Francesca Palombini wrote: > I believe there is a rough consensus that a change needs to be made in the > text to include stronger requirements admonishing operators against deploying > DMARC in a way that

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

On Tue 14/Nov/2023 20:09:52 +0100 John Levine wrote: Thanks for doing this work. It cleans up a messy corner of DMARC. It appears that OLIVIER HUREAU said: I was personally thinking about the following options: 1) Specify Version "2" ... 2) Explore a JSON Format for Aggregated Reports: