> On May 18, 2026, at 5:49 PM, John Levine via mailop <[email protected]> wrote: > > It appears that Dan Mahoney via mailop <[email protected]> said: >> Also, http and https urls are valid url-methods for RUA/RUF, and the milter >> doesn't do them. The perl script now does, in my branch, and they don't >> suffer the >> bounce issue, although they don't seem to be in wide use. > > The new version of DMARC took them out since nobody used them.
That's a shame, but thanks for the tip. I thought it was a legimitately good idea, but it does also add new dependencies on LWP that aren't stock on some OSes. > MTA-STS reporting has a similar http/s option which I tried implementing and > I have only > gotten reports that way from one (1) reporter, which also emailed them. > >> I'm also thinking just a manually maintained list of "dead report receivers" >> is useful. > > DMARC reports are all automated. Why is it worth any effort beyond flushing > the bounces? Well, if you remember the way this thread all started, it started with bombarding a known mailbox provider that doesn't always follow standards for a nonexistent user. Since some mailbox providers are big black boxes that nobody can say how they work, it's reasonable to assume that you shouldn't be sending them mail that will bounce, lest you run afoul of some of their other undocumented rate-limiting, which gives you no feedback even if you sign up for their postmaster service. Also, as an responsible admin, I *should* be looking at bounces, but why should I have to keep seeing bounces when I'm trying to send someone something that they implicitly asked for but are too clueless to make work? -Dan _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
