On 01/07/2014 08:13 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
this could reduce reporting for pass to limit abuse problems, here i
get tired of domains that want reports, but defer forever in there
mailserver
could this be changed without breaking dmarc ?
If the problem you're trying to solve is reporting addresses that don't
accept the reports, I think that should be considered separately. I
don't believe the DMARC spec has asked report generators to go to
extreme lengths to deliver reports.
currently i also see more then one ruf and rua, well its ok, but i
think its abuse :(
I seem to recall that there were limits recommended to report
generators. You certainly were not being asked to generate and guarantee
delivery of 100 reports if there were that many reporting URIs stuffed
into the DMARC record.
If there's something in the spec that needs attention in either of these
areas, it should be brought up on the IETF DMARC list. See
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc for details.
--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)
