On Fri 13/Aug/2021 22:43:35 +0200 Grant Taylor wrote:
On 8/13/21 12:53 PM, John Levine wrote:
If I see an identical filename I assume it's a duplicate.
I would argue that the unique-id would benefit from a SHOULD status,
likely with a comment about avoiding the very interpretation that you
On 8/13/21 12:53 PM, John Levine wrote:
If I see an identical filename I assume it's a duplicate.
I would argue that the unique-id would benefit from a SHOULD status,
likely with a comment about avoiding the very interpretation that you
have. An interpretation I tend to share.
--
Grant.
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>I'd raise to MUST the media type, but leave the filename at SHOULD.
>The MUST can be limited to the components, so that the same content
>results in identical filenames.
>
>I'm not sure the filename is required for interoperability. Do report
On Thu 12/Aug/2021 22:26:57 +0200 Brotman, Alex wrote:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/6
Folks,
I'd like to get a bit of feedback on this one. I realized I'd changed this to a SHOULD, which doesn't really
address the "fuzzy" complaint. Seems like the proper thing to do is make this a
It appears that Brotman, Alex said:
>https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/6
>
>Folks,
>
>I'd like to get a bit of feedback on this one. I realized I'd changed this to
>a SHOULD, which doesn't really address the "fuzzy"
>complaint. Seems like the proper thing to do is make this a MUST, though
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/6
Folks,
I'd like to get a bit of feedback on this one. I realized I'd changed this to a
SHOULD, which doesn't really address the "fuzzy" complaint. Seems like the
proper thing to do is make this a MUST, though I'd be interested in opposing
thoughts.
