On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:51 PM, John R Levine via dmarc-discuss > <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > >> It is even worse than I thought, you really want to stop efforts in > >> fighting phish, by muddling the waters between real domains and fake > ones > > > > > > There's no muddling going on. dmarc.fail is a real domain that should > have > > an excellent reputation since it sends no phish. > > I think Franck is right. It is muddying the waters by introducing a > wholly other domain that has nothing to do with the list or the > subscriber. Not seeing why anybody would recommend that as a best > practice. > > > Not to mention this is also a privacy issue. Now the owner of dmarc.fail has visibility on some traffic he/she should not see.
_______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org 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)
