I was personally planning to go to the IETF-118 specifically for the DMARC
meeting. In the end, many other activities caught my eye.
However, if any of you are going to the IETF, I'd be happy to share a few words
about DMARC and put a face to your e-mail addresses.
Regards, Olivier
De:
> Error reports are a different class than failure errors
Indeed, I was referencing those ones.
> Did any mail operator actually sends error reports
I had access to multiple reports (~40K). I have seen a lot of aggregate, some
forensic/failures (very rare), but no error reports.
Regards,
The sense I’m getting is to cancel the session in Prague. I’ll do that
tomorrow (Thursday) morning SFO time unless someone screams loudly with a
convincing reason that we need to keep the session.
Barry
On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 10:38 AM Barry Leiba
wrote:
> I'm starting this in a separate
Steven M Jones wrote on 2023-11-01 10:46:
On 10/25/23 4:25 AM, Matthäus Wander wrote:
Olivier Hureau wrote on 2023-10-25 12:56:
What about using the error report of RFC 7489 for this purpose
instead of aggregate report? (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7489#section-7.2.2 )
[...]
It appears that Steven M Jones said:
>> As error reports have never gotten any traction, it would be a big
>> effort to make this work. Reusing the existing ecosystem of aggregate
>> reports is a lower hanging fruit.
>
>Failure reports were actually sent for many years, and not just by small
On 10/25/23 4:25 AM, Matthäus Wander wrote:
Olivier Hureau wrote on 2023-10-25 12:56:
What about using the error report of RFC 7489 for this purpose
instead of aggregate report? (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7489#section-7.2.2 )
I have never seen any error report but I think
