On Thu 31/Dec/2020 19:36:15 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
On 12/31/20 10:22 AM, John R Levine wrote:
To what? The Yahoo address is the only address the scout troop has?
Copy that to Reply-To: and write a mangled From: that looks troopy but
passes DMARC. Just like MLMs do.
Lists at MLMs have names that the subscribers will recognize, but the scout
troop only has the Yahoo address.
There are certainly kludges that one can apply to circumvent DMARC
rejections, but this is a clear failure, an existing legitimate mail use that
DMARC breaks.
The entire problem with catering to the long tail is that it is holding hostage
better email security. We should stop doing that. There is no right to stasis
forevermore. If the scouts email breaks, they can get somebody to fix it. They
will thank us in the long run when scammers can't phish using them as a prop.
I agree. Setting p=none makes DMARC non-actionable. I, for one, keep p=none
because of mailing lists.
MLMs seem to be much better than ESPs, since their From: rewriting solves DMARC
problems effectively, creating only an acceptable noise.
I added two new tickets:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/92
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/93
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
