On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Great point. I do already see a fair bit of inconsistencies
("failures" from one or more receivers for the exact same data that
aligns at other receivers).
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:13 PM, John Levine via dmarc-discuss
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I concur with Roland. Looking at my failure reports, I see some from
> Hotmail and Linkedin and beyond that a few from Chinese and Russian
> ISPs generally reporting random spam that happened to randomly fake my
> domain.
But what can you do about it? What is the "value" of having that
information, and what is the "cost" of capturing it?
> The aggregate reports tell you about both success and failures, so put
> them in a database and query for stats about the failures. This is
> not, as they say, rocket science.
I can appreciate that folks do that, and that's awesome. For me and
my systems that just seems like unnecessary overkill. My interests
end when just 1 legitimate receiver verifies alignment, after that any
failures are 99.999% probably not my fault and most assuredly outside
of my control.
-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)
