On Feb 19, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Dorai Ashok S A <[email protected]> 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.
Ashok., I'm glad the "receivers do they want" thing is clear. This is often problematic for senders to get used to. Unfortunately, there are no guidelines for what receivers do when determining what boils down to be their own local policy. DMARC is forcing these questions to come up, but so far these questions haven't coalesced into a set of guidelines. > > In this particular case, I was able to confirm that the email didn't > originate from @mpipe.net. So, it was an unsolicited email. This could be a difficult thing to discover. You may have delivered to another domain, and that domain then forwarded onto hostgator.com infrastructure (192.185.4.17), which then ultimately delivered email to the DMARC-receiver that provided you with the report. Or, it might be a hole that fraud is exploiting to get around DMARC controls. Without some form of copy of the email under question, you just can't know for sure. > > 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. I'm not sure such a DMARC-based flag would be useful. The DMARC social-contract is that receivers provide data back to domain owners, and domain owners use that data to inform their authentication practices. Receivers can then freely apply DMARC policies with the understanding that support costs can be pushed back to domain owners. There are circumstances where email flows beyond the control of both receivers AND domain owners, and for those circumstances the "reason"/override is in place to let domain owners know why their policies were not applied. Against that backdrop, a policy like "p=reject-no-special-cases" isn't useful... "p=reject" does the same thing. Take care, =- Tim > > Is there a way of saying no special cases in DMARC ? > > Regards, > -Ashok. _______________________________________________ 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)
