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 reports were getting big enough to cause concern to those handling them daily. I guess I'll have to wait for somebody with direct knowledge to speak up - it isn't something I'm seeing with my own domains/reports. So first up, backup the anecdotal suggestion that there's a need based on the observed growth of report sizes. Second, an expression of willingness to implement. > The original http language was > hopelessly broken, so I offered something different that I think > would have worked, but nobody ever tested. > > So if DMARC reports are getting too big, I'd be happy to resuscitate > the http language in a short draft to update RFC 7489, but only if > there are a few people who plan to implement each side of it so we can > be sure that it works. Sure, I didn't mean to suggest we'd reinsert something without discussion - let alone something that hadn't been tested/vetted properly. That's real, substantive work for the WG. --S. _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
