John Levine wrote: >>> 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. > > I suppose I could make the rewrite domains into subdomains of the ones > the lists use, for the six different domains I use for lists, but if > the lists are well behaved the mail in the rewrite domain is clean, so > it has a good reputation anyway. It's hard to see how that would make > much difference to spam filters.
dmarc.fail is an interesting approach, however the spam filters aren't the concern that's being raised here, user education is. Teach people that [email protected] is a reasonable email address to receive email from (vs. teaching them to treat that as extremely suspicious) by periodically having legitimate email arrive that way (and preferentially from heavily-phished domains) and you incrementally help phishers. You, myself and fellow email-plumbers know the difference, the lay public won't typically make the connection. The privacy concern is real; you're setting up a situation in which you end up carrying off-list email traffic that the correspondents would reasonably expect never to be possessed by you. - Roland _______________________________________________ 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)
