I have seen some of these blocks mainly due to a badly configured bounce system, and some auto-responder spoofing the sender.
I always refer to spamassassin rules, which seems a fair indication of what people do out there, and you can see there are rules for passing or failing SPF/DKIM. So yes it affects your reputation but as I recall there are no rules for having/not having SPF/DKIM. From: John Sweet <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:22 AM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Fwd: only spf, no dkim It's worth pointing out that we're moving towards a world where not implementing SPF/DKIM/DMARC for outbound automatically puts you in a lower class of service. Some large receivers are already there. "Undeliverable" is demonstrably worse than "spam foldered" from a sender's perspective. So yes, I agree, but his query isn't as obtuse as it might seem at first. In other words: - DKIM-signed spam is still spam, and is treated as such. - Unsigned ham, however, can be treated more harshly than spam, and this is more true all the time. J <http://www.mimecast.com>
_______________________________________________ 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)
