On Friday, June 6, 2014 9:10 PM, "Popowycz, Alex" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On the institutional side, it's been extremely successful > in mitigating the risks stemming from email attacks (e.g. phishing) > for traffic destined to mailboxes supporting the protocol. > On the personal side, even though my volumes are but a trickle, > it's been effective in ensuring the integrity of my domain from > spammers, etc from MTAs as far flung as Sudan, Vietnam, Argentina, > India and many other locations around the globe. interesting. let me guess, none of these undocumented examples is fmr.com, the domain u r posting here from, which, as of today, isn't protected by any DMARC policy record, but merely a "p=none", which, ofc, isn't a protection as u specified in ur post. since there's no webserver behind that domain, i guess that's ur personal domain, but i'm willing to accept it's something completely else. or u meant DMARC essentially didn't protect u, but provided reports upon which u might have had acted. not that such case counts as a point towards DMARC protection usability or efficiency, actually; it dismisses ur DMARC praise completely, instead. if that's the case, i'll guess i'm just not fool enough. > While DMARC may have had a focus on transactional > messaging, its use shouldn't be precluded from other > situations. sure it SHOULDn't. but it is. i'm still waiting on 3rd party support. -- Vlatko Salaj aka goodone http://goodone.tk _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
