> > > > 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
Hi John, Mike, Please forgive me if I gave the impression to be ungrateful to receivers and/or put an additional burden on them for my comfort/lazyness in properly configuring the ingestion side. I understand the added complexity in the implementation, but that's a one-time investment, while continued consumption of computing, storage and bandwidth resources it's a operating cost that might become significant in the long run and usually end up high in the list of costs to be cut. Of course, I see that a receiver may simply elect to stop (or never start) sending the reports, but that's exactly what we (senders) most definitely don't want to happen. Thanks! Davide _______________________________________________ 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)
