On Friday, March 20, 2015 09:56:15 PM J. Gomez wrote: > On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:40 PM [GMT+1=CET], Douglas Otis wrote: > > Dear DMARC WG, > > > > Now that RFC7489 has been published, there remains several > > unresolved problems this WG is charted to resolve, primarily-- > > 1. Addressing the issues with indirect mail flows > > Why is it better for DMARC to be adapted to indirect email flows, instead of > indirect email flows to be adapted to DMARC? > > What does provide more value to end users at large: indirect email flows to > be kept old-style, or the extra notch of trustworthiness that DMARC > alignment provides? > > How big is the volume of DMARC-problematic indirect email flows, compared to > the general volume of email which can readily benefit from DMARC?
I think it's fair to say it varies a lot. I took a look at the reports for my personal domain for roughly the last week. All the mail was SPF pass, DKIM signed, and aligned went sent. Here's the numbers (keep in mind that receivers are likely to count multiple recipients of mailing list messages as multiple message - I don't actually write 5,000 emails a week): Total: 5,029 My Serverss: 6 Mail List/Forwarded SPF and DKIM fail: 5,022 Mail List DKIM pass: 1 In my case (since a lot of my mail is via email lists) it's essentially all of it. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
