> 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.
Using a null envelope sender significantly reduces the chance of auto-responder storms. If they don't have realtime access to their mail infrastructure to detect and mitigate those (which they don't) anything they can do to reduce the likelihood of them happening is a good idea. I think Outlook's OoO has decent-ish behaviour, but OoO vs a VERPing autoresponder can still ruin your day. > 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. Getting DKIM set up and reliable across all their infrastructure is going to make fixing an SPF record look trivial. If it were me I might push off paying too much attention to DMARC until they have DKIM set up mostly correctly (not least because "having DKIM set up" may never happen). Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
