It appears that Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> said: >> 3. Abandon the document and deprecate failure reporting. That would >> involve mentioning failure reports, noting that they have been seldom used >> and problematic, and stating that their use going forward is not >> recommended.
>The real question we should be trying to answer is whether or not provision >of Failure Reports should be kept a public documented standard or recede >back to a private club monetized by 3rd party intermediaries with no hope >of it returning to be an open public standard. The question as laid out by >Barry is strictly procedural without regard to whether there is value in >keeping Failure Reports a public open standard. We've had a decade and my experience matches Seth's. The only people who send failure reports on the public Internet are Linkedin and a few small places that are using open source software that sends them by default. FWIW I also agree that they're not useful for debugging problems, although I do have a rather complete list of who at LinkedIn is subscribed to the same mailing lists I am. Also keep in mind that deprecating them means they still exist, use them if you want to, but we don't think you should. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org
