Yes one would hopeŠ but as there is no feedback mechanism, the receiver never knows if the sender knows what he/she is doingŠ Finding out that a receiver reject your emails, can be difficult.
This is why with DMARC, we are not afraid to reject messages, because the report of it to a "competent" person is within 24 hours. On 7/6/12 9:14 AM, "Alan Maitland" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 7/6/2012 8:55 AM, Chris Lamont Mankowski wrote: >> Murray, >> >> The use case that I'm trying to address is when a sender is sending to >> DMARC enabled receiving MTAs and also to non-DMARC enabled MTAs. My >> understanding is that SPF ~all and -all (as well as ADSP) are >> currently not stringently adhered to by receiving MTAs. Those >> directives may only end up being a weight in the grand scheme of >> things. >> > >One would hope the SPF -all syntax is indeed respected by any MTA that >supports SPF. > >If what you state is true, then when a domain holder publishes a DNS txt >RR which says "v=spf1 -all", the receiving MTA would save itself a boat >load of work by simply interpreting that correctly as what it is and >send the incoming spam message right to the bit bucket (arguably also >recording the source of the send for use in whatever crime and >punishment plan your MTA is configured to perform in response to such >behavior). > >Alan M. > >_______________________________________________ >dmarc-discuss mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss > >NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well >terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
