Sure some things will have to change. It is not impossible, it just needs focus.
On 3/28/13 4:41 PM, "J. Gomez" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:56 PM [GMT+1=CET],Tim Draegen wrote: > >> On Mar 28, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Al Iverson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:18 PM, J. Gomez <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > Will DMARC make it hard for outsourced marketing mail operations? >> > > >> > > I just got this email (which is not spam, I subscribed to this >> > > marketing material) in which RFC5321.MailFrom and RFC5322.From >> > > are obviously not in allignment, which is understandable as the >> > > sending party (the outsourced marketing company) will want to >> > > handle themselves the bounces for that email campaign, but >> > > nontheless the RFC5322.From address has to be a subdomain of >> > > microsoft.com to give it "authenticity" in the eyes of the final >> > > recipient as it's the RFC5322.From address what the recipient's >> > > MUA will display to the user. >> > >> > >My guess here is that the outsourced email marketing company had such a >hard time getting hold of someone technical at it's client (to get them >to customize some resource records in the client's DNS), that they just >took the shortcut approach of using their own domain for both >RFC5321.MailFrom and RFC5322.From in order to secure a Pass-result for >both SPF and DKIM. Your opinions? > >Regards, > >J. Gomez _______________________________________________ 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)
