[dmarc-discuss] Google reports: policy_evaluated incomplete
zwicky at yahoo-inc.com
Mon Jun 11 10:28:00 PDT 2012
Note that, given that I work for Yahoo!, I don't speak for Google. In fact, unless I say so explicitly, I don't speak for Yahoo! Inc, either.
That over with, although we include dkim and spf tags in policy_evaluated regardless of whether or not they are explicitly specified, the spec does not in fact currently require them. (We put them in because more people complained when we left them off than complained when we put them in, although both camps were heard from.) I have already filed a bug pointing out that the spec does not say what the default min and max are, so there's no way of knowing what minoccurs and maxoccurs are when none are specified, and from context, it is clear that minoccurs is omitted both in places where we intended it to be 0 and places where we intended it to be 1. Those tags specify no minoccurs and no maxoccurs, so there's no reason not to make it up, and many people find it intuitive to omit those values if they are not explicit in the DMARC record. So, although Yahoo! does include them, I see no reason why Google ought to.
Unless you're saying they're missing when you have set them to an explicit non-default setting in which case I think they definitely ought to be there.
On Jun 11, 2012, at 1:41 AM, Michiel van de Vis wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> I've noticted that the Google reports contain an incomplete <policy_evaluated> tag.
> The <dkim> and <spf> tags are missing.
> I believe they should be present according to the specification.
> Are there any plans to adjust this at Google?
> Or is there a specific reason they're missing?
> Kindest regards,
> Michiel van de Vis
> dmarc-discuss mailing list
> dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org
> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
More information about the dmarc-discuss