On 01/08/2017 19:41, Jim Fenton wrote: > On 8/1/17 2:11 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> Jim, >> I would like to disagree: >> >>> On 1 Aug 2017, at 00:02, Jim Fenton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> A better approach IMO would be to suggest the use of separate email >>> addresses (e.g., [email protected] or [email protected] for >>> a service provider) in order to distinguish reports from other traffic. >> This is already possible. > > Yes, and for this reason the requirement to add new message header > fields seems gratuitous. I expect reports will be separated by > destination address rather than using IMAP filters, the latter being > given as the motivation for the new header fields. Not really, abusing Subject to encode this information is a hack. So these header fields are useful even only if one type of report goes to a particular email mailbox, because it is easy to separate specific reports by domains, etc. programmatically, for example using IMAP. _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
