Ok Wietse, I understand. Thanks a lot!!!
El jue., 7 nov. 2019 a las 11:06, Wietse Venema (<[email protected]>) escribió: > Richard James Salts: > > On Thursday, 7 November 2019 4:23:20 AM AEDT Dominic Raferd wrote: > > > ... > > > The main problem with DMARC is that some mailing lists (not this one, > > > I believe) mess it up, so I would suggest not to use it with > > > p=quarantine or p=reject on any domain where users are likely to post > > > to mailing lists. One such is (or was) the opendmarc mailing list - > > > something of an own goal. > > > > Although Wietse has taken steps to minimize the impact of the > > mailing list on DKIM signatures it will depend on the headers that > > were signed in the original message, > > In particular, the list server overrides the Sender: header > with the list's address ([email protected]). > I'm no aware of other changes that may break DKIM signatures. > > Wietse > > > and this is the best you can expect from a mailing list as most will > > alter the subject or add a footer to the message body. Many other lists > have > > taken the decision to work around the damage of poorly considered DMARC > > policies by rewriting the From header and putting the original author's > > address in Reply-to (which isn't without it's downsides given there were > > existing practices about Reply-to and mailing lists). I would highly > recommend > > stopping at quarantine for DMARC policy if your domain is anything other > than > > a source of transactional emails (e.g. password resets, promotional > offers, > > etc). Once real humans have mailboxes on the domain and use the > corresponding > > email address in their outgoing mail you're going to have some > collateral > > damage from p=reject. > > > > > > >
