It appears that Dotzero <[email protected]> said: >As far as deciding whether to move forward vs removing references in the >base document, we only have one set of meaningful data provided by Ale. >That data indicates sufficient interest (~64% of domains requesting AUF >reports requesting RUF reports) on the part of >senders/owners/administrators to justify completing the document.
I don't think that means much. It's a checklist item. > We also >know that failure reports are being provided by some large receivers even >if only through back channels based on contractual relationships. It would >be a shame if this working group deprecated the RUF document and ensured >that failure information will only ever be available in a private club//pay >to play model. > >AUF reports are very useful in combating abuse.. This is the more important question. While I can believe that failure reports are useful for some kinds of abuse management, they are useless for their intended purpose of debugging your DMARC setup. I know that the RUF reports I get do not tell me anything interesting. If you want to set up groups to exchange failure reports to do anti-abuse stuff, that is fine, but that is not DMARC. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
