On 5/31/21 15:49, Steven M Jones wrote: > I think we can get the input needed to resolve this by Todd's requested > deadline, and be able to show we did the due diligence to back up the > decision.
I got three responses - unfortunately I discovered I don't have as many of these contacts as I used to. So it's still anecdotal, but it includes two of the (I don't know) dozen top mailbox providers in the world - for whatever positive or negative weighting that may carry with you. I'm about to add the following comment to the TRAC ticket: I offered to try and get information on the frequency of use of this feature from mailbox providers/report generators. I received three responses, which I will rephrase to protect the sources. They can speak up if they wish to go on the record. 1. Global mailbox provider A: Our code doesn't handle the syntax, and will try to send to the address including the size specification. So if you use that in your domain's RUA tag, our reports to you are probably bouncing. There's a bug filed to fix it, but no commitment to do so. 2. Global mailbox provider B: We had the same bug, but fixed it - so reports will be sent to the correct address. But regarding the limit, we checked to see if anybody who specified a limit was receiving reports large enough to trigger it, and nobody was. Large operators who might actually trigger it, didn't specify a size. So we never implemented it. 3. National mailbox provider: I wrote code to implement it, but to my knowledge it has never been triggered. Maybe our operation isn't big enough. But implementing it was painful - guessing what the compressed size would be, how to trim or truncate the report to fit the limit, who to notify in the event of truncation and how... I would prefer removal, but failing that please simplify it. [I can share the suggestions if we go that way. --S.] --Steve. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
