On Monday, February 24, 2014 6:43 AM [GMT+1=CET], Roland Turner wrote:

> On 02/20/2014 05:42 AM, Dorai Ashok S A wrote:
> 
> > You have a valid point here. I now understand why the receiver
> > gives a reason "forwarder" and accepts the emails. I just hope its
> > not exploited to get around DMARC controls.
> 
> I meant to comment on this earlier.
> 
> DMARC appears to draw an unavoidable parallel with access control
> mechanisms in the minds of Domain Owners frustrated by the abuse of
> their domain names (e.g.: your first post used words like "enforce"
> and 
> "unauthorized", the latter in bold). This is perhaps unavoidable, but
> things may run more smoothly if we ever come up with a way to more
> accurately communicate DMARC's intention to those who encounter it for
> the first time.
> 
> DMARC is best understood not as the FUSSP but as a pragmatic tool that
> helps Domain Owners and receivers co-operate on an
> otherwise-intractable 
> problem, consequently it doesn't attempt to solve the entire spoofing
> problem, it merely attempts to make progress on part of the problem.
> The 
> fact that the real-world email system contains situations where DMARC
> can't make decisions as accurately as Domain Owners and receivers
> would 
> like (e.g. legitimate forwarders and independent senders exist and
> engage in a variety of perfectly reasonable behaviours that don't mesh
> well with DMARC) isn't a vulnerability in DMARC (i.e. something that
> can 
> be "exploited"), it's just a problem that DMARC doesn't purport to
> solve.

So, in other words, there is not such a thing as a POLICY of REJECT in DMARC; 
and if there was ever one, you just cannot trust it nor follow it (as a 
receiver).

At least we still have the reporting feature of DMARC, as something which is 
actually useful (for the senders).

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)

Reply via email to