Ironport appliances send reports independently based on the data they see. One of my correspondents has 8 of them, so I have to aggregate reports to get their total.
I wonder if your scenario is also independently collected data that they assume you will aggregate. DF On Wed, Dec 25, 2024, 7:01 AM G.W. Haywood <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi there, > > Not wanting to throw any spanners in any works here, and assuming that > it isn't already implicit, is it worth suggesting somewhere in the RFC > that aggregate reports from one entity to another for any given time > period should themselves (i.e. for that unique set of [entity, entity, > time period]) be unique? > > Amazon regularly sends two reports to us for the exact same reporting > period which are quite different: > > $ diff --side-by-side > amazonses.com\!jubileegroup.co.uk\!1734998400\!1735084800_* > | head > <?xml version="1.0"?> <?xml > version="1.0"?> > <feedback> <feedback> > <version>0.1</version> > <version>0.1</version> > <report_metadata> > <report_metadata> > <org_name>AMAZON-SES</org_name> > <org_name>AMAZON-SES</org_name> > <email>[email protected]</email> > <email>[email protected]</email> > <report_id>22324905-6034-44aa-8327-6356711b42 | > <report_id>d8d6f01d-6a5f-4c11-b24f-8a171e4cda > <date_range> > <date_range> > <begin>1734998400</begin> > <begin>1734998400</begin> > <end>1735084800</end> > <end>1735084800</end> > $ wc -l amazonses.com\!jubileegroup.co.uk\!1734998400\!1735084800_* > 46 amazonses.com!jubileegroup.co.uk!1734998400!1735084800_1.xml > 256 amazonses.com!jubileegroup.co.uk!1734998400!1735084800_2.xml > ... > > You never really know what to believe. > > -- > > 73, > Ged. > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
