Actually, from the code, I'm surprised we handle a single address with !
correctly. I'll file a bug.
Brandon
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss <
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while writing a patch for OpenDMARC, I stumbled accross problems with the
>
On 10/13/16 10:53, John Levine wrote:
> It's a poor idea to put stuff into a spec if nobody's planning to
> implement it, because that generally results in a spec that doesn't
> work when someone tries later.
I take your point, but I understood anecdotally that the large end of
the range of
Whoah there!
This thread has been hijacked by the lack of reading comprehension. Nobody (in
this thread) has complained of DMARC reports being too large.
The problem in this thread is an issue with some DMARC report senders failing
to parse the DMARC URIs properly, if that DMARC URI includes
>There's another question to raise in the IETF working group - do we need
>to re-consider the use of HTTPS as an alternative transport for reports?
>(Background: HTTP was in the original spec, but hadn't been implemented,
>and so was dropped several years ago.)
>
>If we're running into the common
Sorry for not saying so earlier, but we're looking into the multiple to
thing. We'll roll out a fix asap.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss <
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
> On Wed 12/Oct/2016 21:38:45 +0200 Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss wrote:
>
>> On
On Wed 12/Oct/2016 21:38:45 +0200 Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss wrote:
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
