It appears that Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> said: >https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/6 > >Folks, > >I'd like to get a bit of feedback on this one. I realized I'd changed this to >a SHOULD, which doesn't really address the "fuzzy" >complaint. Seems like the proper thing to do is make this a MUST, though I'd >be interested in opposing thoughts. Instead of "The >filename SHOULD be constructed using the following ABNF:", it would be convert >to a "MUST be constructed". > >Relevant section in the current draft: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02#section-2.6.1
I think MUST is appropriate, do this if you want to interoperate. I don't ever recall seeing a report file with a name that didn't follow the pattern. I do still see a lot of .zip rather than .xml.gz R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
