John Levine wrote:
that might be done to get anybody involved in DMARC to actually undo the
damage at the core (e.g., i.e., de-spec p=reject, or at least not use
it).
There's nothing wrong with p=reject when it's used reasonably. There's
a p=reject for paypal.com which is fine, since all paypal.com mail
comes from Paypal, and they understand DMARC well enough to tell their
staff to use a different domain for their individual mail.
The problem here is how to create a DO NOT AIM GUN AT FOOT warning
that people will read and understand and actually follow.
Fair point.
It is also my impression that what's going on at Yahoo is far more
complicated than a simple failure to understand what DMARC does, since
I know staff people there who understand it as well as anyone.
Yeah... but we all get to share the pain. Sigh...
Miles
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
_______________________________________________
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)
