On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:33 AM, J. Gomez <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 8:34 PM [GMT+1=CET], Tim Draegen wrote: >> You guys are accumulating a bit of history of not really talking >> about DMARC, but instead asserting random things that aren't true, >> and then disappearing when asked to do some homework. > > Is it true that if you reject incoming email which fails DMARC validation and > whose sender's policy is REJECT, then you are in for a world of hurt? Yes, it > is true. Therefore, DMARC'S p=reject is not something you can trust, nor > follow. Period. There is no clothing that puppet that is going to change this > truth about DMARC > Then don't. It is normal for a receiver to assert the sender policy, and bounce the email. The sender can correct or not, but as there is a feedback loop, the receiver does not need to second guess the sender policy.
This is this concept that you fail to grasp. If forwarded emails do not reach their destination, the sender knows about it, and asserted it did not matter compared to the spoofing problem they have. There is no world of hurt. So your first axiom is false. No need to continue further. I think, time to closes these threads. We obviously won't change your mind and I guess people on the list have had enough info to form an opinion.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ 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)
