> -----Original Message----- > From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vlatko Salaj > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 5:19 PM > To: Talamo, Victor > Cc: dmarc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] confusing 3rd party support so it remains out > > On Friday, June 6, 2014 10:56 PM, "Talamo, Victor" > <victor.tal...@jpmchase.com> wrote: > > > > With that said if you check the DMARC records for these domains today, > > the vast majority of these domains are DMARC REJECT comprising > > billions of emails. > > billions of notification email. that barely anyone reads. and that nobody > cares > if gets lost. > > i can only hope to see real data on number of DMARC false-positives in that > billions of notification email, but i'm sure that would just completely crash > any trust in DMARC, so we will never see it. >
Our analysis of DMARC reporting (AUF and RUF) plus private channel reporting for our domains indicates FP rates ranging from .17% to .3% (that is, less than a fifth of a percent to a third of a percent). I'm not sure why you claim that reporting of FP rates would "completely crash any trust in DMARC, so we will never see it"? > exactly the reason behind DMARC being an independent document on IETF. > Not really. While people who in the process (Attempt to bring DMARC under IETF auspices other than as an independent document) from both the IETF and DMARC sides may disagree on some things, I think all who were "in the room" would agree that the failure to do so was not a function of false positive rates. > not that i care anymore. it's a waste of my time, obviously. > > 'nuff said. > > > -- > Vlatko Salaj aka goodone > http://goodone.tk > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
