It appears that Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> said: >We had just removed that paragraph. Correct, the core document had removed >the "ri". We had a short thread about it >here, and I removed the piece you're proposing below. Without "ri" being >specified, it's up to the report generator. We >can tell them "0000UTC, 24hr period", but what if they don't? 1hr? 1m? >Should a report receiver discard reports with a >frequency less than one day? What if the report generator has decided that >they want to operate on a volume-based >threshold before generating a report?
People have been generating aggregate reports for at least 12 years. Many do it daily, some do it more often, some at 0000 UTC, most at some other time. They do what they do, and we have built systems that receive and process the reports that they send. I have trouble imagining what problem we think we'd solve by trying to tell people now, 12 years later, what schedule to use. One thing I am quite sure we do not want to say is that everyone should generate their reports at 0000 UTC since that means there would be an enormous spike of mail from about 0001 to 0015 rather than being spread through the day it is now. I agree that taking that paragraph out was the right thing to do, and there is nothing to change now. R's, John PS: I have over 500,000 aggregate reports receeived by my small private mail system so I'm speaking from personal experience here. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
