Welcome, Andrea.
On 09/29/2014 09:58 AM, Andrea Castelli via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> tdraegen> you might try chopping off the trailing "!10m" from your RUA
> and RUF
> tdraegen> fields. Some receivers don't do a very good job parsing those.
>
> The rest of the record seems fine and I just removed the dimension
> cap. Hope things will improve.
If memory serves, we've seen reports from several others that the size
limit notation causes at least a couple of the biggest Receivers to not
emit reports. If you check the list archives, I believe I recall such a
case within the past few months.
> so I expected to see briefly my mailbox being flooded by reports
You probably don't want to point the "ruf=" tag at anything remotely
like a personal mailbox for the type of domains you described. And I
generally recommend a separate "service" mailbox for each.
While the number of aggregate ("rua") reports will generally max out at
a few per receiving domain per day, the forensic reports (or whatever
we're calling them now) vary based on who may be spoofing your domain
(modulo anybody forwarding your messages/breaking your signatures). That
can get very big, very suddenly. In extreme cases, like a very "popular"
brand, it could be enough volume to seriously impact your main mailstore
with little warning.
--Steve.
_______________________________________________
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
