On May 20, 2020 8:00:34 PM UTC, Hector Santos
<hsantos=40isdg....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>On 5/20/2020 2:43 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
>> Transaction? I thought we were talking about aggregate reports.
>
>So am I.
>
>> There are no transactions there.
>
>Really?
>
>Each SMTP session can be considered a transaction. You are provided
>results on the these DMARC processed transaction.
>
>> I mean, what is the CSV format of the following report, that I sent
>yesterday
>> for this list:
>
>Sorry, if I ignored it.
>
>Forgetting fact that you can your report easier to read for consumers,
>these would be an example of the CSV field headers.
>
>CSV headers:
>
>report_metadata.org_name, report_metadata.email,
>report_metadata.report_id, report_metadata.date_range.begin,
>report_metadata.date_range.end
>
>Policy_Published.domain, Policy_Published.adkim,
>Policy_Published.aspf, Policy_Published.p
>
>record.row, record.row.source_ip.record.count.
>record.row.policy_evaluated, record.row.policy_evaluated.disposition,
>record.row,policy_evaluated.disposition,
>record.row.policy_evaluated.dkim, record.row.policy_evaluated.spf
>
>Note: You don't have to stick to redundant "name space" field names.
>
>>>> ... Can we get back to work, please?
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I consider a rude, disrespectful and ignorant statement,
>to be
>>> saying that.
>>
>>
>> No personal attack intended. I'm being rude because I have the
>impression that
>> you are not defending a concrete, well defined need, but instead find
>new
>> arguments opportunistically to pursue a vague sense of format
>fashion.
>
>That's a personal attack. If you don't understand the proposal, you
>should back off or ask for clarification.
>
>> You
>> shifted from an asserted necessity of producers to a possible desire
>of
>> consumers.
>
>I did no such thing. I won't repeat it, but it appears you didn't
>understand the proposal.
>
>>Now you introduce formats like CSV which make no sense in DMARC
>> context.
>
>I disagree. See above.
>
>> I hold that CSV cannot satisfy DMARC requirements.
>
>Hold it all you want. You know it would not be true. See above.
>
>? Please do contradict me by
>> showing us how an aggregate report in CSV would look like, as well as
>some
>> ideas for defining the corresponding template, similar to what
>Appendix C of
>> RFC 7489 specifies for XML.
>
>Ok, I won't but if you don't understand the proposal, you should ask
>for clarification.
>
>CSV can work, so can JSON. Limiting it and locking it down to XML
>only would be a limitation. You can agree or not agree with that.
Not requiring RFC 1149 support is also a limitation, but I'm fine with that.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
