On Thu 11/Aug/2022 21:06:31 +0200 John R Levine wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
I added an example, see
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting/blob/main/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-04.txt#L528
I just picked a report I received and anonymized it. How is it?
The Source-Port field is non-standard so I'd take it out.
Defined by RFC 6692.
I'd also remove at least the ARC and References headers from the message inside
example since they make it a lot longer and don't help explain the format.
Done.
I'd change text/rfc822-headers to message/rfc822 and add ther a message body
or something like [ Message body was here ]
Why? I chose a body-less example as it looks more privacy-friendly.
Perhaps I could change Auth-Failure: to bodyhash and add a
DKIM-Canonicalized-Body. That would prove one can provide that data using
while still sending only rfc822-headers.
BTW: The strings that Auth-Failure: can take seem to still be the ones defined
by RFC 6591. The file I started from had "dmarc". There is no IANA registry.
Should we define one?
The goal here is to make it clear that this has to be multipart/report and what
goes into the message/feedback-report. I hope anyone reading this already
knows what a 5322 message looks like and how to leave out the body.
I need to figure out whether the example is XML <sourcecode> or <artwork> but
we can worry about that later.
I thought it is the source of the email message. Its artistic content lacks
somewhat... :-)
For another point, should I redact the addresses? How? Possibilities:
* Only s/<x@generator.example>/<REDACTED@generator.example>/
* Replace all what looks like a local-part with something like
rZ8cqXWGiKHzhz1MsFRGTysHia4=, according to RFC 6590, including Received:'s for
clauses and Message-Id. This has to be noted in the text.
* Other?
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
