Vlatko Salaj writes:
> and how is my use case different? is it cause:
2. DMARC is designed for business entities big enough to be willing
to maintain MTAs to do the signing for them, or pay for somebody
trustworthy to maintain such an MTA for them. You aren't willing,
so your use case is different.
That doesn't mean your use case isn't important. It means that DMARC
isn't designed for it.
I don't have a protocol that works for your use case. If you have
one, propose it and see if you can get Yahoo! to agree to use it. But
Yahoo! hasn't done it for you, and I'll bet you they won't -- they're
not particularly interested in your use case.
> it's beyond obvious DMARC needs a 3rd party support. every email
> standard has it: SPF has it, DKIM has bunch of them, ESPs have
> them, websites have them... name any email thing that works on wide
> scale and take a few seconds to realize what's its 3rd party
> support in its basic functions.
I'm not sure what you mean by 3rd party support in SPF and DKIM. Can
you put a third party mailbox in From: with SPF? Sure. *And nobody
trusts it, and nobody should.* Anybody with an account at Yahoo! can
put your mailbox at your domain in From:, and it will pass SPF
authentication as Yahoo!. Ditto DKIM. That's not support.
Yahoo!'s use of "p=reject" causes you pain? Tell Yahoo! about it. Or
switch to GMail.
> actually, AFAICS, we have three complete solutions for 3rd party
> support,
What are they? AFAICS, there are none, but I'm willing to be
educated.
> ppl already dismiss DMARC as a failure... and i don't blame them.
DMARC is working for the people who designed it (and they claim to
represent 80% of the users in the US and 2 billion mailboxes
worldwide). Unfortunately, this is not one of those cases where it
happens to work for everybody else. A shame, but "there ain't no such
thing as a free lunch."
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
