The lack of universal DMARC verification and insufficient flexibility in the application of enforcement and local policy overrides in the "filter spam as a service" market (as well as the X.400, SMS, UUCP, Bitnet sort of protocol gateways) were the problems that we were addressing within this item in 7960.
--Kurt On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:59 AM Douglas E. Foster <fosterd= [email protected]> wrote: > I was surprised to see email technology gateways included in RFC 7960. > > I would expect that a public gateway would use a from address within the > gateway domain name, so that it can accept replies. A gateway dedicated > to a single organization would release messages into that organization on a > trusted path, and anything forwarded out of that organization would be > signed at the outbound mail gateway. > > Can anyone who was involved with RFC 7960 comment on whether the gateway > problem still exists? > > DF > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
