On Apr 29, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Matt Simerson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 11:37 AM, Franck Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Apr 29, 2013, at 11:09 AM, John Sweet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> What I find puzzling about the Google Apps DMARC page is that it seems >>> to actively discourage use of the ruf= tag under any circumstances. I >>> suppose it's easier to say, "we don't support it," than, "using this >>> can have all kinds of unpleasant consequences, so use only with >>> extreme caution, and only after you fully understand what they are." >>> >> Well the DMARC FAQ also recommend to not put a ruf= in your record until you >> know what you are doing. Especially until you have an estimate of how many >> failure reports you may get. > > I'll champion the cause of the ignorant. Just turn on ruf and "see" what > comes in. It's a very effective way of figuring out what you are doing, and > what effect your DMARC policy made. If you don't find the data useful, turn > it off and route the reports to /dev/null. > > On that note, if one thought it possible that they'd get a very large > quantity of reports, a compelling argument could be made for publishing > separate email addresses for rua and ruf reports. :-) > Let me rent a botnet for 50$ and send you about 1G failure reports...
_______________________________________________ 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)
