Hi, Marco, > Thank you for taking the time to respond. Allow me to elaborate a little. > > On 24/11/2016 19:34, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: > >> 1. it seems to me that, with this proposal, you move the burden of >> implementing a rate limiting function from the domain owner to the >> reporting organization. > > True, but it doesn't have to be that much of a burden in practice, as is > explained in section 5 of the draft: > > "A report generator in this example would typically honour the "fi" tag > by sending out a report, storing a 'last report sent' timestamp for > example.com in memory and maintaining it as a 'do not sent' flag for a > minimum of $interval seconds during which period no consecutive reports > are to be sent. After the flag has cleared, a report may again be sent. > The cycle then repeats." > > Also, please note: intermediate reports are not generated and not > queued. They only add to the statistics of aggregated "rua" reports.
I'm sorry, missed that one (just scanned (too) quickly through the draft). As it's pretty essential to the draft you may want to add one line to the end of section 1 on this. /rolf _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
