On Fri 05/Aug/2022 18:33:29 +0200 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> said:
On Wed 03/Aug/2022 21:52:21 +0200 John Levine wrote:
He insists that the failure reports mean something is wrong, the list needs
to make them go away, which of course means rewriting headers to make it harder
to tell who each message was from. I suggested that if he doesn't want the
reports he's asking for he should not ask for them, or perhaps use a three
line procmail script to sort the obviously benign list ones, but he's sure
it's the list's fault.
For aggregate reports, one has to collect the information that will later
be aggregated. Failure reporting apparently requires no data collection,
which is probably wrong.
I don't understand what you mean by "no data collection." It is true that
you can send a failure report immediately without saving anything for later.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George
Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.
If it were up to me, I would completely remove failure reports from
the spec. Few people send them, they're not very useful, they
have horrible privacy problems, and as we have seen people use them as
yet another stick to beat up innocent mailing lists.
+1, let's drop it!
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
