On Feb 27, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Dustin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Perhaps one example of being wary of p=reject: > Matt's message, as evaluated by Gmail, failed alignment, and was consequently > marked as spam. In fact, every message in this thread has failed DMARC with > broken alignment. All messages were marked as spam unless the sender set > p=none or the sender was linkedin.com (presumably Google has a special case > for LinkedIn). > > As others have noted, DMARC does not deal with forwarding (or 3rd party > senders) well. This is seems to be a big barrier towards the credibility of > p=reject and DMARC adoption in general (and is also the reason I use p=none). > No, it is not. Unless you want everyone to do DMARC p=reject. First DMARC deals very well with forwarding, if the message remains unaltered during forwarding, which happens in many cases: forwarding an email between gmail and yahoo, will keep DKIM valid, if not mistaken. A lot of senders that moved to p=reject have found that forwarders that break DKIM, are for them, and I repeat for them, not an issue in comparison to the spoofing problem. So DMARC p=reject is not for all, and if you want to use it, you need to change all your mail streams, which for some is not a simple task and only motivated if there is something to gain.
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)
