This list is rather special, as it applies a dkim signature as part of the operation of relaying to the subscribers. So both SPF and DKIM passed on Franck's messages.
amazon.com seems to be configured similarly to linkedin.com, but only with quarantine, and posts I've seen on other lists suggest that there are problems (http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00278.html) Maybe it is because because other list servers are not signing their mail? Or perhaps the problem is that they do not strip the DKIM signature header yet modify the subject and body? Thanks, Peter On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > And yet you seem to want people on this list to get your mail, so I'm > confused? > > Scott K > > On Friday, August 10, 2012 05:29:57 PM Franck Martin wrote: >> There is no documented consensus, and I would not document it that way >> anyhow. >> >> I would prefer to say that Mailing lists, forwarders, third parties, which >> are more likely to be used by individuals more often than not break SPF >> and DKIM alignment, therefore DMARC. While DMARC is well suited for >> protecting transactional emails, one should be careful before enabling >> DMARC for domains used by individuals. >> >> As a side note, I have enabled DMARC for linkedin.com and I'm not >> suffering much from these problems. On the contrary it is helping. We did >> not want to split our domain linkedin.com to linkedin-inc.com or some >> other things, because of the "brand" it represents for our sales people. I >> know at least another party in this group that has same feeling re "brand" >> of the main domain. >> >> On 8/10/12 1:31 AM, "Roland Turner" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >All, >> > >> >I note that a consensus of sorts has formed in some places around the >> >non-use of quarantine and reject policies on domains which are used for >> >individual correspondence because of the loss of legitimate email that >> >will tend to result, however I've not been able to locate published text >> >on this (e.g. it's not mentioned in the draft, nor in the dmarc.org FAQ). >> > >> >Has this (or its contrary...) been documented as a consensus position >> >somewhere that I've missed? >> > >> >- Roland >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
