On May 9, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy via dmarc-discuss <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:07 PM, John Levine via dmarc-discuss > <[email protected]> wrote: > This is hardly a solution, both because it's utterly undocumented, and > it requires a kind of spam filtering that not everyone wants or can > afford. > > Assuming by "this" you mean use of DMARC results as a non-absolute filter > input, isn't that how most everyone treats SPF these days? Dear Murray, It is hard to understand your point. SPF -all policy requests have been relaxed in most cases since they generally generate complaints for legitimate messaging. Will this be okay for DMARC as well? Will accepting DMARC policy requests be considered just hints? DMARC is not in a good position to have third-party services override poor policy requests. There are many smaller domains making requests clearly at odds with their own users. Liabilities represent one of the largest expenses related to third-party assessments which leaves little cover for overriding anything more than the most egregious errors, which clearly includes Yahoo and AOL at this time. The fact that those making problematic request have not properly responded suggests perhaps they consider this a way to change SMTP into of peer-to-peer protocol. Regards, Douglas Otis
_______________________________________________ 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)
