That is helpful, thank you. It says to me that their non-participation does not have any direct implications for what we are trying to do.
Specifically, it is not that DMARC has too many false positives, or that the processing effort is unacceptable. It is simply a reflection of their assessment that valuable information should be purchased from them, not given away for free. Doug Foster On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 12:31 PM Mark Alley <mark.alley= [email protected]> wrote: > It basically comes down to data gatekeeping for product monetization. > > Mimecast doesn't send RUA/RUF reports externally, because they bought > DMARC Analyzer. Similarly, Proofpoint does not send reports from Proofpoint > Essentials (ppe-hosted.com) or hosted PPS clusters (pphosted.com) because > of their Email Fraud Defense product. > > In the same vein, Valimail has a partnership with Microsoft for Exchange > Online reports (not the same as outlook.com reports) that operates in a > similar manner, except without the monetization barrier. I've heard rumors > for a long time that Microsoft will start sending reports from Exchange > Online "sometime soon", but I'm somewhat skeptical until we actually see it > implemented. > > In all of these previous cases, they "synthesize" reports from the > respective email gateways as well as ingesting external reports. In > essence, you have to use the respective paired product to see your own > domain's DMARC data, as they don't send reports to external endpoints, > reflected by the lack of reporting you're seeing. > > Outlook.com was sending reports up until recently... their reporting > consistency seem to be very unreliable as of late. And I don't think I have > seen any reporting from icloud.com. > > So, as you noted, what we're left with are gaping holes in data reporting > with some of the largest ESP's, one can only hope they eventually decide to > share with the rest of the world. > - Mark Alley > > On 11/20/2022 11:16 AM, Douglas Foster wrote: > > Thanks, but my real question was, "why are any major players not fully > participating?" > > If they are unimpressed with DMARC filtering, does our work make it more > attractive? > > If they are only opting out of reporting, can we do something to make the > reporting piece more palatable? > > Doug > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2022, 11:26 AM Steven M Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 11/19/22 19:13, Douglas Foster wrote: >> > I note that I have no feedback reports from: >> >> The best view of who participates in DMARC feedback reporting probably >> lies with the report processors. Some of them will tell you who they are >> getting reports from: >> >> https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-data-providers/ >> >> Outlook.com certainly appears to be providing aggregate reports, though >> I haven't personally received one since September... >> >> --S. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
