On Sat 14/Jun/2025 04:58:13 +0200 John R Levine wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Wed 11/Jun/2025 13:56:50 +0200 John R Levine wrote:
I really do not understand what point you are making here. People find
aggregate reports useful enough to build businesses around them. But
failure reports are useless.
I can hardly believe it. Unless you're getting a reward for receiving
useless messages, why on earth do you have this record? [ with ruf= ]
I set up my DMARC records in 2012 and have been collecting reports for the past
13 years. I have gotten 597,000 aggregate reports and 93,000 failure reports.
All of the failure reports take up less than 800MB, an insignificant amount of
disk space these days. A little script puts summary into info a database which
is another 32MB.
The reason I know that failure reports are useless is that I have a collection
from over a decade and the most interesting thing they've ever told me is who
at LinkedIn subscribes to the same mailing lists I do.
That's the mailing list problem in action. It could be tackled by asking the
report generators to omit reporting failures due to mailing lists, e.g. through
subscriptions tracking. Had we solved this problem, you would not have
received any reports, which wouldn't be sufficient to conclude that they are
useless.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
