On Sun 07/Aug/2022 19:20:12 +0200 John Levine wrote:
By remembering failure reports issued in the past, new failures having
already reported characteristics (e.g. same forwarder) can be silently
ignored. That would greatly reduce noise.
This is a horrible idea. It presupposes that failures from the same origin
(e.g. same forwarder) at different points in time are the result of the
same underlying cause. This may be true in some cases but not true in other
cases. Operational environments are not static. Even for short time frames
this is a bad approach.
It also misses the fact that "already reported characteristics" is
undefined.
Right, that's to be defined. Clearly, the criteria differ between SPF and
DKIM. We could also define fuzzy criteria.
We have plenty of work already without inventing more. Let's agree not to
do this and get back to work on what we've already agreed to do.
Does "not to do this" refer to failure reporting as a whole?
As is, it is a noise generator that the majority of users decided not to
implement.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
