On Aug 14, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Steven M Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sent separately to the [dmarc-ietf] list for spec considerations. Direct > follow-up spec discussion there; operational issues can remain with > [dmarc-discuss]. PLEASE edit your To: accordingly. > > Originating message on [dmarc-discuss] from Tomki Camp queried how many > implementations obeyed the optional report size limitations described in > section 5.1 ... > > > On 08/14/2013 05:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote: >> On Aug 14, 2013, at 5:07 PM, Matt Simerson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I just iterate over the URI list and send the report to each one, skipping >>> over any where the message size exceeds the published limit. >> But this is not the intent, you are supposed to cut the report in smaller >> chunks and send them... (just saying ;) > > Can you cite the section(s) for that behavior, Franck? I think that wink emoticon means Franck was kidding. > Matt, if no reports can be sent based on size limits, do you then send a > "reports too big" notice to all the mailto: URIs per section 11.2.4? Not yet. I did just add that to my TODO list. > Pursuant to the original question though, has anybody received an error > report as described in section 11.2.4 in the wild? Not here. I'm running DMARC on a small server, so it's not likely to happen until one of my email users pisses off someone on the ROKSO list. Matt _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] 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)
