We also discussed a json option, which would offer far superior size reduction overall compared to XML, and the working group had strong consensus in opposition to that.
So I do think a small improvement in compression isn’t worth it at this time. Seth, still participating -mobile Seth Blank | Chief Technology Officer Email: [email protected] This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system. On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 16:32 John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 21 Nov 2024, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> I personally like the idea of being able to use better compression > >> schemes. ... > > For some actual data, I found the largest XML report I recently received > which was about 2 meg, and compressed it with gzip and xz. The gzip > version was 3.5% of the original size, the xz version 2.1%. While xz was > somewhat smaller, I don't see an extra 1% of compresssion when we're > already getting better than 95% compression as worth the hassle of trying > to add another scheme. That's doubly so since it is unlikely that > reporters who haven't even switched from the draft ZIP format over a > decade ogo to the RFC gzip will notice. > > R's, > John >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
