We send reports from a platform that doesn't contribute to DMARC reports, as option 4.
1) What if they fix it? 3) I don’t think this is a valid option. You could have millions of messages from a single IP. Perhaps you mean omit reports for a single message (or below some other threshold)? However, if it's a bounce (I take that to mean a permanent failure), it won't always result in a DMARC report. -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast > -----Original Message----- > From: Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 1:31 PM > To: dmarc-ietf <[email protected]> > Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate reporting loops > > Hi, > > non-existing rua= addresses generate loops, because the target domain sends > a bounce, and on the next day the generator sends them a report for that one > message. The report bounces, and so forth... > > Three ways to prevent that: > > 1, accurately store all bouncing addresses so as to avoid sending again, > > 2, omit aggregating data for DSNs, or > > 3, omit sending reports that have only one row. > > > I'd opt for 2. However, the ID says "The report may include [...] The counts > of > messages based on all messages received". Would it make sense to change > that so as to exclude DSNs? > > > Best > Ale > -- > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
