On 10/13/16 10:53, John Levine wrote:
> It's a poor idea to put stuff into a spec if nobody's planning to
> implement it, because that generally results in a spec that doesn't
> work when someone tries later.
I take your point, but I understood anecdotally that the large end of
the range of reports were getting big enough to cause concern to those
handling them daily. I guess I'll have to wait for somebody with direct
knowledge to speak up - it isn't something I'm seeing with my own
So first up, backup the anecdotal suggestion that there's a need based
on the observed growth of report sizes. Second, an expression of
willingness to implement.
> The original http language was
> hopelessly broken, so I offered something different that I think
> would have worked, but nobody ever tested.
> So if DMARC reports are getting too big, I'd be happy to resuscitate
> the http language in a short draft to update RFC 7489, but only if
> there are a few people who plan to implement each side of it so we can
> be sure that it works.
Sure, I didn't mean to suggest we'd reinsert something without
discussion - let alone something that hadn't been tested/vetted
properly. That's real, substantive work for the WG.
dmarc-discuss mailing list
NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms