[opendmarc-dev] draft: patch to implement an override mechanism for MLMs

[Juri Haberland]

A. Schulze wrote:

> I personaly would skip the Source-Port because it's mostly random.

Of course it's random :-)
The thinking behind this header is that it helps finding the connection the
mail was submitted through, and as it didn't need much work, I just included
it. Feel free to ignore that piece of information ;)
(also see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6692)

>> And while I was at it, I changed the subject of the failure report to not
>> report the subject of the failed email, but have a more generic contents:
>> "DMARC failure report for <domain>" - see the second patch.
>
> that patch I didn't apply.

Do you mean you did not like it or do you mean that it applying it failed?

> the subject line is the first I see in a mailbox. And mailboxes with the same
> subject on every message force me to look inside every message.
> For a mailbox full of dmarc reports that's additional work.

I see your point, but I wanted to have something similiar to bounces, which
have constant subject lines, too ("Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender").
I found it disturbing and confusing to have mails with subject lines that look
like phishing or viruses ("FW: <original subject>") and to directly see the
subject of some other people's conversation.

What kind of information would you like to see in the subject line? The job
ID? The sending host?

> I updated https://andreasschulze.de/dmarc/opendmarc ...

Great.

Thanks,
  Juri