On 10/12/16 01:32, Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> I hoped to get a reaction here of some sort from Microsoft, Google or
> but my mail might got burried underneath useless rants about DMARC and
On 10/12/16 02:00, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> Consider https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
There's another question to raise in the IETF working group - do we need
to re-consider the use of HTTPS as an alternative transport for reports?
(Background: HTTP was in the original spec, but hadn't been implemented,
and so was dropped several years ago.)
If we're running into the common size limits on email messages for
reports at the largest senders/receivers today, what should we be
planning for in five years? In ten? Maybe it's time to re-establish an
alternate channel in the spec, so it will be ready when we need it.
> Btw: Did anyone notice that AOL sends DMARC reports with two To: headers?
Looking at the last few reports I received from them for this domain, I
only see one 5322.To header. But the most recent report was
mid-September. Anybody else out there seeing two? It could make tracking
down a bug much easier for them.
I occasionally remind one of the bigger report senders that they're
always missing spaces in the 5322.Subject lines of their aggregate
reports, but it doesn't seem to get fixed...
dmarc-discuss mailing list
NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms