On Mon 22/Jul/2024 20:05:31 +0200 Brotman, Alex wrote:
We send reports from a platform that doesn't contribute to DMARC reports, as option 4.
Me too, I send them as [email protected]. This is a different problem, though. I think both problems should be addressed in the spec.
1) What if they fix it?
Could make them expire after a month or so?
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)?
In any case, (3) tends to give a partial view. I mean, I know that reports about less than hundreds are just noise for ESPs. However, in theory, mail can also be used by the average housewife...
However, if it's a bounce (I take that to mean a permanent failure), it won't always result in a DMARC report.
Andreas' NOTIFY=NEVER seems to be the correct solution to this problem. Best Ale --
-----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.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
