On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:19 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
Why is this only SHOULD? What legitimate reason might an implementation
have for deviating from this advice?
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.
>
If there's information being encoded in the Subject field that the
recipient is expected to be able to decode, I think this makes sense. If
it's just a "it sure would be nice" sort of deal, then I don't even think
this should even be a SHOULD.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
