Jim,
Bear in mind that all reporting is at the good graces of receivers; the options to fine-tune what is sent may, or may not, actually be implemented by any given receiver. (This isn't an interoperability or conformance comment so much as a real-world systems one. Postel's Law definitely applies.) Anything that you can reasonably do by yourself with the data that you are given is something that you should be willing to do, at least for some receivers some of the time. Trying to use the DMARC options as configuration tools to fine-tune what data you work with isn't likely to work very well, that's something that you should be doing with the tools that you use to process the data that you receive. Disregarding (and even not requesting) aggregate reports is your prerogative of course, but note that even amongst receivers who will send aggregate reports to strangers (organisations with whom they don't not have formal NDAs), the vast majority will not send failure reports. Most of the useful information that DMARC will give you is to be found in the aggregate reports. - Roland ________________________________ From: dmarc-discuss <[email protected]> on behalf of Jim Popovitch via dmarc-discuss <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, 27 January 2017 07:43 To: John Levine Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Why do I receive RUAs for emails that align? On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:50 PM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > In article > <cagfsgr0hs6eylx0key+j+5hpzuve1kfoufyn3j731d+xcr7...@mail.gmail.com> you > write: >>Hello, >> >>I'm trying to limit RUA/RUFs to legitimate emails that need eyeballs. >> >>To that end, I'm scratching my head as to why I get RUAs that clearly align. > > That's how it works. See section 7.2 of RFC 7489. Aggregate reports > tell you about all the mail a system got that has your domain on the > From: line. > > Everyone I know automatically parses the aggregate reports and puts > the info in a database so they can query it about whatever is of > interest. > > Here's some scripts I give away that do the parse and put in a database part. > > http://www.taugh.com/rddmarc/ > > R's, > John Thanks John, I guess I'm now more inclined to remove the rua= stanza as I don't manage user accounts and am really only interested in the failures. -Jim P. _______________________________________________ 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)
_______________________________________________ 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)
