On September 1, 2021 8:28:46 PM UTC, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.
As long as the file name is the same, I agree.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
