On 2/1/21 10:13 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 2/1/2021 10:08 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Mon 01/Feb/2021 17:38:07 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote:
Consider the challenges to ensuring a DMARC pass. That's a pretty
high barrier to entry against generating reports.
Well, if a mail site is unable to get a DMARC pass, they have more
urgent problems to solve than setting up aggregate report generation.
No, they probably don't have more urgent problems. Sites choose not to
adopt DMARC for a variety of reasons. It's probably a good idea to
respect that variety.
The model that a receiving site is not allowed to report DMARC traffic
unless that site is also generating DMARC authentication is
Procrustean. And as I noted, is likely counter-productive.
There is no such thing as "DMARC authentication". The paragraph quoted
is poorly written and should be rewritten to say that the report should
pass either SPF or DKIM authentication as I wrote in issue #98. This has
nothing to do with the DMARC at all. And if requiring authentication is
"religious fervor", I really don't know what to say.
Mike
I understand the zeal that drives a lot of the effort to promote
DMARC, but the danger with aggressive proselytizing is that it changes
from serious technical and operational evaluation into purely
religious fervor.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
[email protected]
408.329.0791
Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
