Hi, Paul,
On 03/12/2014 02:11 AM, Paul Midgen wrote:
Hey Jonas,
Well-written article, thanks for putting it out there and advocating
folks use DMARC.
One request, if you ever amend/update the article, and specifically
since you're speaking to high-volume receivers, is to qualify the
remarks regarding use of forensic reporting with the point the core
DMARC contributors have been making: make an informed decision based
on your knowledge of the sort of traffic you receive; use local policy
to inform the decision to apply strong policies or send forensic
reports, as well as drive the level of redaction applied to such reports.
Advocating that high-volume receivers turn off forensic reporting due
to concerns of list membership leakage is also an argument for not
honoring quarantine and reject policies, which some of the high-volume
receivers participating in the development phase of DMARC showed
rather exhaustively to be safe when selectively applied based on local
policy.
The same research also showed that the benefit realized by reduction
in exposure to email-borne threats outweighed the risk of loss in what
amounted to a fraction of a percent of the total post-filter traffic
received by such domains.
Can you please provide a pointer to the research report? I'm eager to
learn how these risks and benefits are computed and I'm interested to
learn exact figures about loss of legitimate mail due to DMARC reject
policies.
Regards,
/rolf
_______________________________________________
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)
