Re: [dmarc-discuss] Beware of the size limit in DMARC URIs

2016-10-12 Thread Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss
On 12.10.2016 12:17, Steven M Jones via dmarc-discuss wrote: > On 10/12/16 01:32, Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss wrote: >> Btw: Did anyone notice that AOL sends DMARC reports with two To: headers? > > Looking at the last few reports I received from them for this domain, I > only see one

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Beware of the size limit in DMARC URIs

2016-10-12 Thread Dave Crocker via dmarc-discuss
On 10/12/2016 3:31 AM, Steven M Jones via dmarc-discuss wrote: Let me clarify a bit -- the dmarc-discuss list is very much an appropriate forum for the kind of operational topic Juri raised. Implementation issues, operational questions/issues, etc -- all good for this list. Yup. But for

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Beware of the size limit in DMARC URIs

2016-10-12 Thread Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss
Consider https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc - Roland From: dmarc-discuss on behalf of Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2016 16:32 To: Juri Haberland Cc: DMARC

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Beware of the size limit in DMARC URIs

2016-10-12 Thread Steven M Jones via dmarc-discuss
On 10/12/16 03:17, Steven M Jones via dmarc-discuss wrote: > On 10/12/16 02:00, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: >> >> Consider https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> >> > > +1. Let me clarify a bit -- the dmarc-discuss list is very much

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Beware of the size limit in DMARC URIs

2016-10-12 Thread Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss
Hi, I hoped to get a reaction here of some sort from Microsoft, Google or Yahoo, but my mail might got burried underneath useless rants about DMARC and DNSSEC... Btw: Did anyone notice that AOL sends DMARC reports with two To: headers? Kind regards, Juri On 2016-10-04 09:21, Juri