In article <cabugu1qzy2ptljg+a-1ahdkiky_1vhrpz5anj1ans4phncz...@mail.gmail.com> you write: >My contention to Seth is that in a multi-hop scenario, the *only* report >with meaningful data will be the one from the handler who made the "fail" >determination and any subsequent reports are untrustworthy.
Assuming that "subsequent" means earlier in the chain, I agree. >Do the other folks on this thread agree that our main point of contention >has to do with the ability to generate the DMARC report (or the data >scoping thereof)? Yes. I understand what to do with "here's a valid chain" and "it was broken when I got it", but not "here's a broken chain you may or may not be able to reconstruct." R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
