By remembering failure reports issued in the past, new failures having already reported characteristics (e.g. same forwarder) can be silently ignored. That would greatly reduce noise.
This is a horrible idea. It presupposes that failures from the same origin (e.g. same forwarder) at different points in time are the result of the same underlying cause. This may be true in some cases but not true in other cases. Operational environments are not static. Even for short time frames this is a bad approach.
It also misses the fact that "already reported characteristics" is undefined. For example, the guy complaining about reports from NANOG messages considers all reports about a message forwarded through NANOG are the same, even though they could have come from a dozen different recipients that don't know about each other.
We have plenty of work already without inventing more. Let's agree not to do this and get back to work on what we've already agreed to do.
Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
