> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:dmarc-discuss- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of John Levine > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:28 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Wishlist - Finer reporting options for RUF > > In article > <[email protected]> you > write: > >am I alone feeling we might have a use for some "fine-tuning" options > >to "filter" the kind of failure report one wishes to receive (and > >cooperating receivers wish to generate) for RUF destination(s)? > > Since reporters are doing us a big favor by sending reports in the first > place, I > think it would be a better idea just to do whatever editing you need to do on > the messages they send rather than asking them to add extra code at their > end. > > Personally, I want them all, even though the vast majority are not actionable. > You never know what you might later want to go back and check. >
A big +1 to what John wrote. The less burden/complexity we place on those willing to provide RUF reports the more likely we are to get additional mailbox providers willing to provide them. This is a non-trivial effort on their part and we as senders of mail should be appreciative of those willing to provide reports. Mike _______________________________________________ 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)
