>> The tag "l=" would not be required. Its absence would formally equal >> "l=dunno", which meaning is explicitly undefined. >> >> The absence of "l=" is not equal to "l=no". The presence of "l=no" shows >> to the Receivers at large that the Sender is aware of DMARC's failure case >> with mailing lists, and that he as a Sender is not affected by such a >> problem.
Could someone describe a plausible scenario in which this hack is more useful than a simple whitelist of senders for whom you skip DMARC checks? Spammers can pretend to be lists, so you can't blindly trust that anything with a List-ID or whatever is a list, and you need the whitelist anyway. On the other hand, based on about 30 years of experience with mailing lists, any list worth whitelisting is run well enough that more complicated checks add nothing. R's, John _______________________________________________ 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)
