Hallo, Le 06/04/2023 à 01:46, Dotzero a écrit : > > Not at all. The discussion (and specific post I was responding to) was > about mailing lists but it also applies more generally. A number of > years ago I saw bounces from a Polish domain. Their policy was that if > the From and the Mail From didn't match they would reject the inbound > email. I find that absurdly limiting but they can implement whatever > policy they want. Maybe there are sending domains that do that for all > their mail. My point is that domain owners/admins, at least on certain > levels, get to choose how they interact with other networks/servers.
Yeah, but this is where DMARC comes in, and muddies the responsibilities that come with those choices. Originating domains (quoting Todd Herr) just "use p=reject as a signal to declare that they got all outgoing mail authenticated". Evaluators candidly comply with the originator's wish to have unauthenticated mail rejected. None of them is taking responsibility for the breakage they collectively are causing to mailing list (etc…) operation. Avalanches of bounces inflicted upon uninvolved third parties are a major interoperability problem caused by DMARC. This should not happen without either the originator or the evaluator breaking a MUST requirement. Otherwise, DMARC itself is responsible for the breakage. > I also don't think it would be pretty but it's within the realm of > options they can choose from. You talk, but you know they won't really do it. Because they're not trying to coerce you into changing your way of operating. BTW, From munging has not become any "neater" than it was 2 years ago. Or 2 years before. As long as there is no proven solution (ARC?), rehashing the same pseudo-moral arguments is not helpful. Cheers, B. Carvello _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
