[dmarc-discuss] Google reports: policy_evaluated incomplete

Pradeep Kyasanur kyasanur at googlers.com
Tue Jun 12 08:31:38 PDT 2012


On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Michiel van de Vis
<m.vandevis at acervus.nl>wrote:

> 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.
>
Thanks Michiel, we will take a look and update.


>
>
> /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)
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120612/2468c370/attachment.htm>


More information about the dmarc-discuss mailing list