On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 03:53:51PM -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I don't agree, since DMARC is predicated in part on the notion that DKIM > has become sufficiently reliable in general as to be a viable building > block upon which to build things like DMARC. Your question is based on the > idea that your experience is the opposite. Naturally, we're curious. > > I believe the questions you're getting are actually attempts to help. Are > you sure swatting their hands is the right response?
It's my understanding that in general about 90% of the DKIM mails have a bad signature. It's also my understanding that were DKIM tends to fail, SPF tends to work and the other way around. But DMARC seems to combining the two in such a way it's more than likely to have a failure as result instead of a pass. Why I'm seeing 90% failure in DKIM instead of 10% is irrelevant. Kurt _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
