On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:15 PM, A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss <
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
>
> Alec Peterson via dmarc-discuss:
>
> Why force the report generator to do something that could be done when the
>> report is received, if desired?
>>
>
> because
> - the MTA already did the rDNS
On 9/29/2015 6:57 AM, Chris Meidinger via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> I believe it is a https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6591 in extension of
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5965.
could be useful to upgrade the format to include a citation to the
document that specifies the format. that way
Andreas wrote:
> because
> - the MTA already did the rDNS job
> - I send the failure reports to myself. I still "see" the Source-IP
> field which has not so much information...
As you're not aiming for machine consumption, there's no need for a new field.
Just use a comment:
Source-IP:
Alec Peterson via dmarc-discuss:
Why force the report generator to do something that could be done
when the report is received, if desired?
because
- the MTA already did the rDNS job
- I send the failure reports to myself. I still "see" the Source-IP
field which has not so much
