-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message <CAH48Zfyowa3nnXf2bn59R01LqXq-=kMFNPS6=46Py2c- [email protected]>, Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail. com> writes
> So initially, I am asking for a compsrison between my results and > the data used to justify the asserted consensus. if you published the data (just the right hand side of relevant addresses is needed) we could check your working ... > Was 2% previuosly observed and judged acceptable? Were the > previous error rates judged acceptable because they were computed > using a different denominator definition? clearly if you get 10 messages from odd-domain and 10 messages from Google then you will see a different percentage than someone who gets 3 (or some days 0) messages from odd-domain and 1000000 from Google ... but provided odd-domain isn't just sending to you then any large mailbox provider should have seen enough mail to provide a sensible measure of the impact by counting domains not %age of overall mail. > With our present design, the necessary response to these errors is > for the domain owner to remove intermediate DMARC policies. that's strange ... isn't the intent of the new scheme to encourage subdomain owners to add them ! I do wonder if this is the PSL raising its ugly head again. A remarkable number of the people who have added entries have not understood how they now need to publish rather more DNS records than previously ... - -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBZSGUTN2nQQHFxEViEQKHpQCeP4SAEJFQbCG74hSpmKPugIWLWs0An2e5 DMtrmcDBziCPFM9PVB0Vx6dI =aCqk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
