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

2016-10-14 Thread Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss
On Fri 14/Oct/2016 08:37:08 +0200 Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss wrote: On 2016-10-13 20:06, Matt Simerson via dmarc-discuss wrote: 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 size limits. Right

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

2016-10-14 Thread Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss
On 2016-10-13 20:06, Matt Simerson via dmarc-discuss wrote: This thread has been hijacked by the lack of reading comprehension. Nobody (in this thread) has complained of DMARC reports being too large. Right. The problem in this thread is an issue with some DMARC report senders failing to

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

2016-10-14 Thread Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss
On 2016-10-14 00:26, Brandon Long wrote: Actually, from the code, I'm surprised we handle a single address with ! correctly. I'll file a bug. Thanks, Brandon! Juri ___ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org

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

2016-10-13 Thread Brandon Long via dmarc-discuss
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 >

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

2016-10-13 Thread Matt Simerson via dmarc-discuss
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

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

2016-10-13 Thread John Levine via dmarc-discuss
>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

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

2016-10-13 Thread Paul Rock via dmarc-discuss
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

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

2016-10-13 Thread Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss
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

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 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 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 Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss
nd Cc: DMARC Discussion List Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Beware of the size limit in DMARC URIs 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 D

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