On 8/1/17 1:02 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > On 01/08/2017 19:41, Jim Fenton wrote: >> On 8/1/17 2:11 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >>> Jim, >>> I would like to disagree: >>> >>>> On 1 Aug 2017, at 00:02, Jim Fenton <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> A better approach IMO would be to suggest the use of separate email >>>> addresses (e.g., [email protected] or [email protected] for >>>> a service provider) in order to distinguish reports from other traffic. >>> This is already possible. >> Yes, and for this reason the requirement to add new message header >> fields seems gratuitous. I expect reports will be separated by >> destination address rather than using IMAP filters, the latter being >> given as the motivation for the new header fields. > Not really, abusing Subject to encode this information is a hack. So > these header fields are useful even only if one type of report goes to a > particular email mailbox, because it is easy to separate specific > reports by domains, etc. programmatically, for example using IMAP.
I don't think I was suggesting anything involving Subject. There's already some of this in Section 5.3, and I'm not crazy about doing that either, especially since it's only a SHOULD (so the report recipient can't really depend on it being formatted that way). _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
