On Saturday, May 03, 2014 12:28 AM [GMT+1=CET], Terry Zink wrote: > > > if this maillist here would change i bet it would be more > > > understandable on what not to do > > > The advice hasn't changed: don't set a DMARC policy other than > > p=none on domains used by human users. We know that some large > > domains have disregarded that advice, but it doesn't make it any > > less correct. > > I understand this position because it's a position I take many times > here at work. However, as has been pointed out to me, just because I > am correct doesn't mean that I am right, nor that I don't have a > problem to solve. > > Given that large email providers like Yahoo and AOL do publish > p=reject records, how is the rest of the email community going to > deal mailing lists and other legitimate cases that fail DMARC? It's > not enough to say "Yahoo and AOL shouldn't be doing it." That ship > has sailed. The question now is what can we do to improve user > experience? Several answers have been proposed: > > 1. Do nothing and let domains that publish p=reject live with the > consequences > 2. Don't permit domains with p=reject onto mailing lists > 3. Mailing lists should reformat the message to prevent DMARC failures > 4. Email receivers should be selective about how they enforce > p=reject - send it to Junk or even skip enforcing it from known good > emailing lists > 5. Extend DMARC so that it supports mailing lists > 6. Something else? > > These each have their pros and cons but it seems to me that working > to support p=reject with mailing lists is a net benefit to everyone.
Hi, Terry. What do you think about this proposal to extend DMARC to account for the failure case of DMARC with mailing lists: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc/current/msg00167.html The proposal was dismissed by the staunch defenders of DMARC's immutability, but I would like to know your take on it, if you would be so kind to share it. The proposal was done long before YAHOO and AOL adopted p=reject. Then the common wisdom was that the deployment of DMARC would happen step by step from none to quarantine to reject even using percentages in the process. However, now the brisk reality of the world happens to be different from what was then theorized, so perhaps that proposal deserves a second chance to be considered/discussed. Regards, J. Gomez _______________________________________________ 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)
