I do like your suggestion of silent discard rather than bounce, and I
would want to see that change made -- perhaps with a note that
aggregate reports will still include information about those discards.
Having thought about it for a minute, I have a better question.
We already know that sites that reject list mail for DMARC failures do not
care about mailing lists because if they did care, they wouldn't do that.
So I think the chances of them making a change that only benfits lists
rounds to zero.
Why is it up to the recipient systems (the ones that do not care) to make
life easier for lists? Mailing list packages already do lots of analysis
of bounce messages. How about if they fix their bounce processing to
recognize DMARC failures and do something different. Certainly for the
large recipepent systems that handle the bulk of mail these days the
rejection messages allcontain words like DMARC or authentication so it's
not hard to figure out.
Bonus question: if you send a lot of mail to a recipient system that it
rejects, you will get a bad reputation and they are likely to view the
mail you send with great scepticism, even for the stuff that survives
DMARC. Suppressing the bounce messages only makes it harder to figure out
why the mail is all disappearing.
Extra bonus question: how many minutes will it take for spammers to hope
that suppressing the bounces will somehow help them evade filters (whether
or not that's true) so they'll start putting List-ID on plain old spam?
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
PS: some of us actaully do want the bounces from our lists, since we have
various hacks to evade DMARC and want to know if they don't work. We find
this proposal has negative benefit.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
