> On Jun 5, 2017, at 2:57 PM, Autumn Tyr-Salvia <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > Any idea what the impact of turning on the return-path for autoresponders > would be? Colleagues tell me that the hosted mail service (Proofpoint) tells > their clients not to use a return-path address for autoresponders because > this is the RFC-correct way to do it. We could probably get them to make an > exception here, but I'm curious if there is any real world impact to that.
5321 says that All other types of messages (i.e., any message which is not required by a Standards-Track RFC to have a null reverse-path) SHOULD be sent with a valid, non-null reverse-path. The RFCs in mention in 5321 are RFC 3461 and RFC 3798 both of which have to do with the transport of mail, not with an out of office response. > I agree that my customer should ultimately set up DKIM before we set them to > DMARC p=reject. They will, but they are an insurance company with an attitude > of great caution around change, so it will take a while. It took us about 6 > weeks to get them permissions and approvals through their change management > process to fix their SPF record, so I was hoping to improve those results > while they work on getting DKIM set up. If they’re using a null return path and a shared outbound server without a custom HELO / EHLO that is not in their domain space and they are not signing with DKIM, there is no way that DMARC will validate. Custom HELO that maps into their domain space or use a valid non-null reverse-path. laura -- Having an Email Crisis? 800 823-9674 Laura Atkins Word to the Wise [email protected] (650) 437-0741 Email Delivery Blog: http://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
