Thanks Andreas, I'll be sure to notify my vendor their implementation is outdated, at least I can get google.com.zip attachments :)
-----Original Message----- From: dmarc-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 5:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] dmarc reports and rfc3834#5 The Auto-Submitted header field Jacob Evans via dmarc-discuss: > Hey All, > Are we requesting that an auto generated/auto submitted header be > included in these reports? > > This will remove things like OOF Bounces and auto responders. (which > will just help patch misuse of the DMARC record itself as I would > expect reports should go to parsers, not users.) aggregated reports sent by OpenDMARC already contain this header :-) short search in 1500 reports: - I receive aggregated reports from 90 different senders - 36 different sender from cisco.com and belgacom.be -> 56 different "organisations" - 31 senders include an "auto-generated" header. -> assumption: ... use OpenDMARC :-) Andreas _______________________________________________ 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) ________________________________ This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, print or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply and delete the message. Thank you. _______________________________________________ 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)
