On Wed 27/Jan/2021 21:18:50 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
On 1/27/21 12:14 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
The schema's already pretty large, and probably has to be, but maybe a
trivial example report would be reasonable to craft and include?
Yeah, that might do too.
+1. It can be produced
. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast
*From:* dmarc *On Behalf Of * Murray S. Kucherawy
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2021 3:14 PM
*To:* Michael Thomas
*Cc:* dmarc@ietf.org
*Subject:* Re: [dmarc-ietf] understanding section 7.2
The schema's already pretty large, and probably
sday, January 27, 2021 3:14 PM
To: Michael Thomas
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] understanding section 7.2
The schema's already pretty large, and probably has to be, but maybe a trivial
example report would be reasonable to craft and include?
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:05 AM Michael Th
On 1/27/21 12:14 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
The schema's already pretty large, and probably has to be, but maybe a
trivial example report would be reasonable to craft and include?
Yeah, that might do too. I think it's important that it be in section
7.2 though because you should be able
The schema's already pretty large, and probably has to be, but maybe a
trivial example report would be reasonable to craft and include?
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:05 AM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> So I'm an outsider who has not tried to digest what's going on in the
> reports until recently so my
So I'm an outsider who has not tried to digest what's going on in the
reports until recently so my eyes are fresh. Basically section 7.2 is
extremely hard to understand what is in the reports. I know that the XML
is what ought to be normative, but a little bit of ascii art could go a
long
