Jim Popovitch wrote: > I rolled out additional DMARC support for Mailman (outbound alignment) > recently, and to be honest I'm not yet convinced that all receivers > have a clue when verifying alignment...
Can you explain what difficulty you're describing here? From the examples that you linked I saw messages that had SPF passes, meaning that the DKIM result was not important (and quite possibly not tested or recorded). > so it makes it much more > difficult, for me, to trust the data. So... imho it's a waste of > time/effort building an archive of suspect data until faith can be > established in what is reported. You certainly shouldn't spend time and effort on this if you're not deriving value from it. The idea of trusting the data is an unusual one in a DMARC context though. One of the things that DMARC reporting does is to expose the variability and complexity of real-world email systems, meaning that the data often requires human interpretation and even guesswork. DMARC reports should be treated as indicative rather than trustworthy, in any typical sense of that word. It is certainly to be taken for granted that there is incomplete and/or erroneous data in the reports. It occurs to me that you've not spelled out clearly what you're attempting to achieve with DMARC (or I missed your doing so). Doing so might surface an incorrect expectation on your part that might allow your difficulties to be resolved in one step. - 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)
