Hi Guys! I recently implemented DMARC on one of our clients and initially set its RUA field to [email protected] ( Example.co.uk is the alias domain name of our client). And week ago, I changed the RUA field to another Email address (which doesn't have the example.co.uk domain. - dmarcian.com)
My problem is 1) why I am still getting the aggregate reports to the [email protected] rather than to the newly added Email address? 2) We are not sending any emails for the example.co.uk any more, and we still get the Aggregate reports (Microsoft,Gmail) to the [email protected] 3). Is there any way we can stop receiving the aggregate reports for the domain example.co.uk as we are not not using the domain anymore. I tried the changing the DMARC record even taking off from the DNS settings field, but we still receive those aggregate reports. Thank you in Advance Uratnay On 05/08/2013 20:00, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >Send dmarc-discuss mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > >You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of dmarc-discuss digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: multiple from (Dave Crocker) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:58:39 +0200 >From: Dave Crocker <[email protected]> >To: Murray Kucherawy <[email protected]> >Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] multiple from >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >On 8/5/2013 6:36 PM, Murray Kucherawy wrote: >> Now, if there's a problem with the standards or reality (e.g., shifting >> priorities) has evolved sufficiently that they need updating, then there >> exist public processes available to any comer for amending them. If >> they're broken or obsolete, let's fix them. But if that isn't >> happening, maybe the blame isn't rightly placed there after all. > > >The thread got more abstract than my jet-lag allowed me to track, but I >think the above paragraph reduces things to the essential, pragmatic >point. > >For worthy dialectic disagreements, reality tends to impose a negotiated >settlement having balance. (The only hard part, here, is determining >worthiness, lest crazy extremes get assigned unwarranted worthiness... >but I digress beyond the current thread into other parts of the real >world.) > >If someone thinks the spec should be changed, they raise the suggestion. > If something looking like a rough consensus of the community agrees, >then the spec is changed (and I'm counting validated errata entries as >changing the spec.) Otherwise the suggestion fails. > >It's an established, mundane, pragmatic process, and doesn't need >philosophical debate. > >d/ > >-- >Dave Crocker >Brandenburg InternetWorking >bbiw.net > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >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) > > > >End of dmarc-discuss Digest, Vol 20, Issue 3 >******************************************** _______________________________________________ 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)
