On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:28 PM Hector Santos <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2023, at 9:24 AM, Dotzero <[email protected]> chastised > Douglas Foster > > Absolutely incorrect. DMARC is a deterministic pass|fail approach based on > validation through DKIM or SPF pass (or if both pass). It says nothing > about the acceptability/goodness/badness of a source. > > > So why are we here? > Because you care? > > Correct or incorrect, a published p=reject has to mean something to the > verifier who is doing the domain a favor by a) implementing the protocol > and b) the goal of eliminating junk. If there are false negatives, whose > fault is that? The Domain, The Verifier or the Protocol? > DMARC does one thing and one thing only. It mitigates against direct domain abuse in a deterministic manner, nothing else. It doesn't stop spam and it doesn't depend on or involve reputation. It is but one tool among a number of tools that various parties can choose from. A message passing DMARC validation does not mean the message is "good". There is no question of fault. Perhaps you should recommend changes to incorporate a blame game if your goal is to determine fault. > > I think it’s the protocol but thats my opinion as one of early DKIM POLICY > adopters and an advanced and costly implementation. If policy does not help > protect a domain and also the receiver with failure hints or better said > negative classification of a source per the domain policy, then what is the > point of the work here or lack of there? > False negatives are generally the result of implementation choices of senders. That's not an interoperability problem. It's a case of "Doctor, it hurts when I do that". The correct response is "Don't do that." Receivers are free to assign reputation, apply local policy as they see fit but that all falls outside of DMARC. > > Same is true with SPF. > > Please try to be more civil with people’s views or position with this > problematic protocol. > Thank you for sharing your opinion. I'm truly and deeply sorrowful if I have offended your sensibilities. I will consider including trigger warnings on future posts. > > Thanks > You are welcome. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
