> On Nov 11, 2023, at 7:11 PM, Steven M Jones <s...@crash.com> wrote: > > >> On 11/12/23 04:56, Dotzero wrote: >> >> Our original intent (I'm one of the folks behind DMARC) was that failure >> reports would be provided to senders just like aggregate reports. This was >> before GDPR and privacy concerns did a number on the practice. The companies >> that provide the service of managing these FBLs for you typically allow you >> to view and/or download the reports. > > +1 on the original intent - we were on the cusp of having a network of paid > services and bi-lateral information sharing agreements, but instead the group > decided an open system anybody could participate in would be better. Not that > it would be effortless to participate and benefit, it obviously takes a lot > of work, but it would be possible if one put in the effort and resources. > > +1 on the general decline due to a changing PII landscape. > > There are still some sources sending failure reports, but they tend to be > smaller operators. > > And even in a world of "private failure reports," having the format > standardized is a useful thing. > > --Steve. >
I have a feeling the die is cast for failure reports from MBPs. I’m curious to learn if they sent legit failures, which has scared off the major MBPs except for Yahoo. So if others were using a third party, it’d be sort of interesting to know what they sent and how it assuaged those worried about the PII. Eventually, I’d reckon, Yahoo will stop sending failure reports, rendering them worthless as nobody you’ve heard of will send them. This issue isn’t a five alarm fire. I figure maybe adjust this next WG. I think the train has left the station and there’s no brake to pull. Thanks. Neil
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
