In article <754690b7-6624-4cc6-66e1-62438b32c...@tana.it> you write: >On Sat 19/Dec/2020 01:03:58 +0100 Seth Blank wrote: >> >> A privacy consideration should say such a thing, specifically clarify what >> may be in a report that could be categorized as PII even after intended >> redaction, but refrain from legal advice.
Given how few failure reports we're seeing, perhaps we should just take out the advice and say something like you can send these as is or redacted if you want and your policies permit, but most people don't. It's kind of amusing to know the exact names and e-mail addresses of everyone at Linkedin who subscribes to the same lists I do, but I could live without it. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
