On 2017-08-01 22:08, Jim Fenton wrote: > 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).
On the contrary. A SHOULD basically means you follow the spec unless you have a good reason not to do so. _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
