Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC forensic reporting options

2016-12-14 Thread John Levine via dmarc-discuss
>Any comments on this? I doubt it would make any difference. People don't send reports because they don't want to send reports, not because the reports are too big. As someone else noted, the privacy issues are just as bad with the headers. R's, John

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC forensic reporting options

2016-12-14 Thread Vladimir Dubrovin via dmarc-discuss
I can't say for all DMARC implementers, but in our case concerns about (not) sending forensic reports are security and legal issues, not the size of message body. According to regulations, technical information about message, including not only headers, but also log records, BTW, is considered as

[dmarc-discuss] DMARC forensic reporting options

2016-12-14 Thread John Comfort via dmarc-discuss
As a result of mail receivers not sending forensic reports, the amount of time to migrate to a reject policy can increase considerably. It would be a nice option within the DMARC RFC to specify a new switch indicating the desire to receive header-only forensic reports. The expectation being that

[dmarc-discuss] Implementing DMARC to Protect the Corporate Domain From Spoofing / Technical Recommendations for Email Senders

2016-12-14 Thread Vladimir Dubrovin via dmarc-discuss
Hello, few more BCPs. We were trying to be short and gather different tips into a single point, because nobody reads long manuals before it's too late. Technical Recommendations for Email Senders