Re: [dmarc-discuss] RUA vs RUF reports

2018-05-27 Thread Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss
Al, Note that the terminology changed a while back from forensic reports to failure reports, presumably to remove the confusion that the use of the term forensic invites[1]. You've not stated what action you intend to take in response to the receipt of a failure report, so it's a little

Re: [dmarc-discuss] RUA vs RUF reports

2018-05-27 Thread Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss
Well, I think that would depend on the use case, would it not?. I've got one server and Google Apps, everything signs with DKIM, and SPF is configured correctly. I don't really have any edge cases to look out for -- no other outsource service providers in the mix. The rare (for me) failed message

Re: [dmarc-discuss] RUA vs RUF reports

2018-05-27 Thread Vladimir Dubrovin via dmarc-discuss
Aggregated report contain all information, including SPF/DKIM/DMARC failures, but it doesn't contain forensic information (e.g. failed message Subject). Aggregated reports are supported by almost all large ESPs, so, if you have some troubles you will probably see it in aggregated report.

[dmarc-discuss] RUA vs RUF reports

2018-05-27 Thread Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss
In a DMARC record, I see that rua= specifies the address to which aggregate feedback is to be sent, and ruf= specifies the address to which message-specific forensic information is to be reported. I'm just a tiny bit confused about terminology-- could somebody confirm for me that I'm thinking of