On 04/01/2014 06:26 AM, Matt Simerson wrote:
On Mar 31, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 03/29/2014 06:24 PM, John Levine wrote:
Is there a suggested way to abort the loop, other than preventing a DMARC
report email from being reported on, which has its own drawbacks?
If you consider this to be a problem, you can send your reports from a subdomain
with its own DMARC record that says not to report back.
Or an entirely reasonable practical hack would be not to send reports
on domains with traffic below some threshold.
there may be various ways to work around this 'minor nuisance', but wouldn't it
be better to address this 'loose end' in the spec itself, instead of having
everyone to re-invent the weel?
/rolf
+1
As resolving this does not require co-ordination[1], it does not seem
like an appropriate candidate for complicating the behaviour codified by
the spec. Avoiding the reinvention problem can usefully be addressed by:
* an FAQ entry
* a BCP paragraph, when/if such documents appear
* options in implementations.
- Roland
1: If you don't want your reports to ever be the subject of reports then
simply send from a domain that doesn't request reports. If you simply
If you don't want to report on the reports of others, then simply
exclude email to your reports address(es) from the input to your report
generator, or simply suppress reports about very small numbers of messages.
--
Roland Turner | Director, Labs
TrustSphere Pte Ltd | 3 Phillip Street #13-03, Singapore 048693
Mobile: +65 96700022 | Skype: roland.turner
[email protected] | http://www.trustsphere.com/
_______________________________________________
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)
