I haven't heard any other support for this. I'm inclined to leave it as is currently written unless others chime in.
-- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast > -----Original Message----- > From: dmarc <dmarc-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:19 AM > To: dmarc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting- > 03.txt > > On Wed 18/Aug/2021 22:30:06 +0200 Brotman, Alex wrote: > > If you feel as though something is amiss, or I've misinterpreted the > consensus, please let me know. > > > I'd swap SHOULD and MUST between the following sentences: > > If a report generator needs to re-send a report, the system > SHOULD use the same filename as the original report. > > and > > The RFC5322.Subject field for individual report submissions > MUST conform to the following ABNF: > > For the subject, alternatively, "Report-Id" msg-id could be optional, as it is > with the filename. It is very noisy and doesn't seem to be much useful if it > doesn't match the filename, let alone its uniqueness. > > > Best > Ale > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > __;!!CQl3mcHX2A!WUcDqYdgg- > N4xaJrhTrh7yyVJXLl0YFs7Q9H9vY338oILvyM7_trujnFdTtnE_fQ2W9b$ _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
