Re: [dmarc-ietf] Consensus Sought - Ticket #53 (Remove reporting message size chunking) - With Interim Notes

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Steve, this confirms size limits are a useless encumbrance on reporting.

Best
Ale


On Tue 08/Jun/2021 01:20:55 +0200 Steven M Jones wrote:
> On 5/31/21 15:49, Steven M Jones wrote:
>> I think we can get the input needed to resolve this by Todd's requested
>> deadline, and be able to show we did the due diligence to back up the
>> decision.
> 
> 
> I got three responses - unfortunately I discovered I don't have as many
> of these contacts as I used to. So it's still anecdotal, but it includes
> two of the (I don't know) dozen top mailbox providers in the world - for
> whatever positive or negative weighting that may carry with you.
> 
> I'm about to add the following comment to the TRAC ticket:
> 
> 
> 
> I offered to try and get information on the frequency of use of this
> feature from mailbox providers/report generators. I received three
> responses, which I will rephrase to protect the sources. They can speak
> up if they wish to go on the record.
> 
> 1. Global mailbox provider A: Our code doesn't handle the syntax, and
> will try to send to the address including the size specification. So if
> you use that in your domain's RUA tag, our reports to you are probably
> bouncing. There's a bug filed to fix it, but no commitment to do so.
> 
> 2. Global mailbox provider B: We had the same bug, but fixed it - so
> reports will be sent to the correct address. But regarding the limit, we
> checked to see if anybody who specified a limit was receiving reports
> large enough to trigger it, and nobody was. Large operators who might
> actually trigger it, didn't specify a size. So we never implemented it.
> 
> 3. National mailbox provider: I wrote code to implement it, but to my
> knowledge it has never been triggered. Maybe our operation isn't big
> enough. But implementing it was painful - guessing what the compressed
> size would be, how to trim or truncate the report to fit the limit, who
> to notify in the event of truncation and how... I would prefer removal,
> but failing that please simplify it. [I can share the suggestions if we
> go that way. --S.]
> 
> 
> 
> --Steve.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>