[dmarc-discuss] Discrepancies between ISPs' aggregate reports

Jan-Pieter Cornet johnpc at xs4all.net
Thu Jun 21 15:10:04 PDT 2012

On 2012-6-21 19:27 , Franck Martin wrote:
> May be we should have by default the UTC day for sending reports. At least this is what I'm doing, because that's the way my logs are stored. So very convenient for me.
> But in general servers internal clocks are set to UTC and logs and other critical data are stored in UTC time. So this could be the path of least resistance.

What if the reporting interval isn't the default of 86400, but something else like 25200 (7 hours). And then after a while the reporting interval gets reset to 86400? Should the UTC day be brought back? Should the UTC 0:00 point always mark the start of a reporting interval, even if the reporting interval isn't a divisor of 24 hours (eg in the case of ri=25200, you'd get reports at 7:00am covering 7 hours, 14:00pm covering 7 hours, 21:00pm covering 7 hours, and at midnight covering 3 hours). On the other hand, maybe we ought to put in the spec that as a receiver, you SHOULD make your ri= something that's a divider or multiple of 86400 (and at least 3600), or it won't be guaranteed ;)

That also means that receivers will potentially be sending a lot of emails all around 0:00 UTC... (not really a problem at the moment... but could be significant if the number of DMARC-enabled domains rises, especially when UTC 0:00 is in normal working hours, which goes for all pacific coastal regions probably).

Jan-Pieter Cornet <johnpc at xs4all.net>
Systeembeheer XS4ALL Internet bv
Internet: www.xs4all.nl
Contact: www.xs4all.nl/contact

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 331 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://medusa.blackops.org/pipermail/dmarc-discuss/attachments/20120622/1cd45053/attachment.pgp>

More information about the dmarc-discuss mailing list