On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:17 PM [GMT+1=CET],John Levine wrote: > In article <[email protected]> you > write: > > On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:03 PM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > > > PS: I'm ignoring the ridiculous suggestions that every mailing > > > list in the world should change their existing working code to > > > circumvent DMARC mistakes. We didn't do it for SPF/SRS, we > > > didn't do it for DKIM or ADSP, and we're certainly not going to > > > do it now. > > > > No one is making these ridiculous suggestions, but when they do, > > they'll be sorry they did! > > Glad to hear it. In that case, could someone please take them out of > the FAQ? > > http://www.dmarc.org/faq.html#s_3 >
I get pure-SPF "Pass" for all posts I get from this mailing list. So pure-SPF did not break mailing lists. The mailing list case should be addressed in the FAQ. If the current "suggestions" are to be taken out of it, what should the FAQ say about mailing lists with DMARC?, just that the user is "SOL"? A workable work-around should be found/implemented for mailing lists and DMARC. The power of DMARC lies in its "p=reject" policy (yeah, the reporting is also nice to have, I know), but if my boss is not going to be able to subscribe to his favorite yatching mailing list, I may as well pass the whole DMARC thing because pissing off my boss is not in my planning of urgent things to do. 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)
