John, Are you ready to send failure reports for emails received by you?
Show the way, write about it, this may help others to do the same. Thanks On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:10 AM, John Comfort via dmarc-discuss < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > Maybe it is time to rethink this, or open a more official dialogue. I > understand folks don't want to send reports. I understand the privacy > issue. However, without these reports, or at least *some* information sent > regarding the unaligned emails, we are at an impasse to migrating to a > 'reject'. For certain environments (e.g. financial), we cannot reject > *any* legitimate emails and therefore require verification of all emails > that are rejected. > > I would be perfectly fine with limiting the information if people are > really that paranoid about header information. For example: date, > receiving server information, originating smtp server sender, and subject > line. This would be a good start at least. > > Let's make DMARC powerful and efficient instead of a "cool idea". > > John > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 6:02 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >> >Any comments on this? >> >> I doubt it would make any difference. People don't send reports >> because they don't want to send reports, not because the reports are >> too big. As someone else noted, the privacy issues are just as bad >> with the headers. >> >> R's, >> John >> > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc-discuss mailing list > dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org > 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) >
_______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org 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)
