On Tue, May 31, 2022, at 1:33 PM, John R Levine wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2022, David Bustos wrote: >>> Forwarding is pretty broken these days. Even if you had perfect SPF, a lot >>> of your incoming >>> mail would fail DMARC because a lot of DMARC policies depend on SPF and SPF >>> can't deal with forwarded mail. >> >> I'm talking about outgoing mail, not incoming mail. > > Are you talking about mail you send, or mail sent to your bustos.name > address that's forwarded to a mailbox somewhere else?
Mail that I send to other people, with [email protected] as the from address. Yahoo and Gmail sometimes direct it to spam. I presume it is because bustos.name doesn't have an SPF record. >>> I'm not surprised. The registry contract with ICANN forbids it. >> >> Is the contract available for me to read? > > It's the standard registry contract on the ICANN web site. Does the contract forbid publication of MX records? Verisign does that. >> This special case was committed to by TLD regulators back in 2002 and it is >> a problem for everyone with a third level .name domain. That's probably not >> many people, but the current situation is inconsistent so I am trying to >> figure out if any increases in consistency are possible. >> >> Yes, if no changes are possible then I may need to abandon [email protected] >> . > > Looks that way. Is your position that Verisign should publish SPF records for the .name domains? David _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
