[dmarc-discuss] Google reports: policy_evaluated incomplete

Michiel van de Vis m.vandevis at acervus.nl
Mon Jun 11 23:14:22 PDT 2012


Hi Elizabeth

The way I read the specs is that when minOccurs and maxOccurs are both
missing, there should be 1 occurence.
>From that point of view they should be present.

The 'policy_evaluated' tag is optional, but when present should contain
'dkim'/'spf' tags.

But as Tim lined out Google is indeed using an older format which didn't
contain these tags.
It would be really nice if you could update it.

/Michiel


2012/6/11 Elizabeth Zwicky <zwicky at yahoo-inc.com>

>
> 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.
>
>        Elizabeth
>
>
>
>
> 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
> > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
> > NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well
> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://medusa.blackops.org/pipermail/dmarc-discuss/attachments/20120612/67c31166/attachment.htm>


More information about the dmarc-discuss mailing list