On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:21 PM, J. Gomez <[email protected]> wrote:
> If DMARC is going to increase support costs for small email operators, I > may as well migrate all my clients to Google Apps or Office 365 and be done > with costly email. > > That is why, in my view, DMARC's p=reject has to either be reliable to be > relied on, or be suppressed from DMARC's formal specification if it is > going to mainly be equal to p=do-whatever. > Can anyone point to a single instance of a sender-receiver policy protocol that was "reliable" by this definition, enough that receivers would blindly agree to do whatever the sender asked/suggested/demanded? I can't think of any. Some, many, or most of them were supposed to be, but it has never turned out that way. I don't know why DMARC is being held to a different standard. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
