It appears that Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> said: >It feels like folks would prefer that the subject be required to be of a >specific format to better enable duplicate report processing. Do I >understand that correctly? > >So that would be: > > If a report generator needs to re-send a report, the system > MUST use the same filename as the original report. > >And: > > The RFC5322.Subject field for individual report submissions > MUST conform to the following ABNF:
Sounds right. >And we need to add some language suggesting how to deal with duplicates report >transmission, if they happen. Scott/Matt also pointed toward a >few other areas that could use with a bit of clarification. I don't see what the problem is with receiving duplicates. Maybe you ignore them, maybe you process them and replace the original result. Either is OK. Even if you store the results twice, it's hard to see how that will make much difference to your overall report analysis. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
