On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:41 PM [GMT+1=CET], Dorai Ashok S A wrote:
> Hi Tim, > > I understand that the receivers are free to apply whatever policy they > want. However, in line with DMARC, I would expect receivers to follow > some guidelines. I am really interested in these guidelines so that I > can configure my mail server correctly. > > In this particular case, I was able to confirm that the email didn't > originate from @mpipe.net. So, it was an unsolicited email. > > I understand from your response that the receiver giving a reason > "forwarder" is kind of like a special case which they want to handle > correctly. Although, I wish DMARC provided some way of saying, no > special cases. After all, senders do get a failure message when the > email gets rejected at the SMTP layer due to DMARC. > > Is there a way of saying no special cases in DMARC ? Not that I know of. As DMARC breaks mailing lists, DMARC-aware receivers will always apply local policies to override DMARC policy p=reject as per each receiver's secret-sauce in-house recipe. So you can publish DMARC p=reject, but it is going to mean little to the world, because the world just cannot trust that you REALLY mean a DMARC policy of p=reject when you publish it. Perhaps when DMARC is more widely known that in-the-trenches reality will change. Google as a receiver currently applies their own secret-sauce policy to sender's DMARC policy of p=reject, and the rest follow. 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)
