On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Steve Atkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Franck Martin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm a little baffled by people making generalities, about me, personally, >> testing mailing lists (and especially most of the dmarc related lists) with >> p=reject, and people assuming a generality from this. > > It’s kind of a domain reputation issue. That you’re using an @linkedin.com > email address for 1:1 email to mailing lists shows that linkedin.com are not > an appropriate domain to use DMARC as they don’t have full control over how > their domain is used for email (and that in turn leads to more pressure to > special case delivery and ignore DMARC unless you know something more about > the mail and so on). That you’re doing this on mailing lists that have a high > visibility to DMARC folks means that the impact of that is *way* > disproportionally large. :) > > If you were to use a different domain for your testing of mailing list > behaviour with DMARC (e.g. franckmartin.com or an entirely DMARC testing > dedicated one) then the implication would be quite different. > non sequitur
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)
