On April 8, 2015 9:47:39 PM EDT, Steve Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Apr 8, 2015, at 5:32 PM, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> So why is DMARC any more useful than these "hacks"? >> >> Good question. As originally intended, DMARC was for mail from >sources where a failure reliably meant phish. Then AOL and Yahoo >repurposed it to push their support costs onto other people, and its >value has been under debate ever since. > >Also a major reason that people who were dubious about SPF policy and >extremely dubious about ADSP supported DMARC was that it has reporting >and dry run functionality. Run it in p=none mode; use the reports to >make sure that nothing breaks; if nothing breaks switch to p=reject. > >I didn't think that anyone significant would skip the testing, >reporting and decision making steps and leap directly to intentionally >breaking email for their users their users' correspondents.
I don't think they were confused about the breakage (see Yahoo's original announcement of the change). They knew what would happen and decided it was Okay given the perceived benefit. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
