Yep, we at least did the 2 mailbox function to help save the aggregate one!
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Steven M Jones <[email protected]>wrote: > On 08/10/2012 12:05, Tim Draegen wrote: > > On Aug 10, 2012, at 2:58 PM, "Menotti Minutillo, Jr." < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I think any references to ruf in FAQs should have a quick warning, e.g. > "Note that specifying an ruf tag will ask receiving ISPs to report > authentication failures to the address specified in your domain's ruf tag > as they happen. This often causes an influx of reports and should only be > enabled if you've prepared some aggregation function." > > > Understood. Thanks for the pointers & suggestion. I'll open a ticket > internally to make sure the published FAQs and the DMARC.ORG site > contains quick warnings where appropriate. > > > I thought we had some warnings about that, but a review never hurts. > Clearly it could be... uhm, clearer. :) > > An additional point would be to suggest the use of a different > address/mailbox to receive forensic vs. aggregate reports. Even if the > mailbox for the forensic reports fills up you may still be able to receive > aggregate reports, and it reinforces the point that they are two different > things. > > --S. > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss > > NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well > terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) > > -- Menotti Minutillo
_______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
