I'd rather it be more general, to show where all of the plausible parts go.
Message/rfc822 is not more general, is just different. If I implemented
failure reporting, I'd choose text/rfc822-headers (and heavy redaction) to
reduce PII leakage as much as possible.
The point of the example is to show people what the message format is, so
I would include all the stuff that would plausibly appear in a failure
report.
I've anonymized it already, the question is if it's useful to blatantly
redact stuff (redac...@yyy.zzz or RFC 6590) so as to encourage readers to
implement redaction.
The point of the example is to show people what the message format is, so
I would not confuse people by trying to show clever redaction.
Again, we do not know how other people run their mail system so while I
agree that we should remind them that there is likely to be PII in
reports, we don't know what they consider to be PII nor how severely they
might want to redact them.
By the way, it looks like you edited this into the XML rather than the
markdown source. It would be nice to have the markdown available for
future edits.
I agree. However, the md file in the repository is strange as it contains
stuff which should be generated.
It does, it looks like someone did a quick cut and paste to make the
markdown. But it's not that long, you're the editor, how about fixing the
md so it's useful for editing?
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
