On 28 Jan 2019, at 19:09, Bill Cole wrote:
On 28 Jan 2019, at 3:35, Benny Kjær Nielsen wrote:
[...]
I'm now at the point where I would automatically become suspicious if
anyone (any webpage) seems to claim to fully understand the
consequences of any kind of setup/setting related to this :-)
There are definitely some people (maybe dozens) with very deep
understandings of DMARC and the consequences of all of its options,
but they know better than to think there's a universal right way to
deploy it trhat can be boiled down to a web page. I'm not one of those
people but I know a few of them, and none are fond of general p=reject
use, especially for domains used to provide mass-market retail/free
mailboxes. Everyone who participated significantly in the DMARC
definition process knew that all existing discussion group mailing
lists operating across independent domains would be damaged by unwise
use of p=reject. I'm pretty sure that some people see that as a
feature, either because traditional mailing list behavior is
inherently problematic and needs an incentive to change OR because
they see an opportunity to advantage their own captive discussion
groups. It's not accidental that the first significant mailbox
provider to use p=reject was Yahoo.
The only real fix for mailing lists is to munge From headers, at least
for list members who have p=reject domains. Disabling bounce
processing is an unsustainable option and banning users in p=reject
domains is impractical.
Thanks for this Bill. I came to the same conclusion and it's nice to
know that someone agrees :-)
--
Benny
_______________________________________________
mailmate mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
