Would this list break SPF then? Thanks
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 11/21/19 11:47 PM, Wesley Peng wrote: > > Richard Damon wrote: > >> That is a question to ask them. Basically the strict DMARC policy is > >> designed for transactional email, where spoofing is a real danger. The > >> side effect of it is that addresses on such a domain really shouldn't be > >> used on mailing lists, or any other 3rd party senders not specifically > >> set up for that by the domain owner. For the proper usages of this, it > >> really isn't much of a problem, as the sorts of institutions that deal > >> with this sort of transactional mail, probably shouldn't be using that > >> same domain for less formal usages that tends to go with a mailing list. > >> > >> The problems arise when a domain that doesn't really need that level of > >> protection adopts it for some reason, especially if they don't inform > >> their users of the implications of that decision. > > > > Hello Richard, > > > > If I am wrong, please forgive me. > > > > Many ISP/Registrars provide email forwarding, I even had a pobox.com > > account which I used for 10+ years with just forwarding feature. > > > > When a mail like mail.ru was relayed by those providers, it sounds > > easy to break SPF/DKIM, so the recepients may reject the message. This > > is not good practice for the sender, even for mail.ru itself. > > > > Am I right? > > > > regards. > > > Normal forwarding will break SPF, but not DKIM (one reason DMARC uses > both). A mail provider that uses strict settings but doesn't DKIM sign > the messages would be considered seriously broken in my experience. The > issue is that many mailing list will break DKIM by slightly modifing the > message, like adding a signal word to the subject or a footer with > information like unsubscribing instructions (this can be a legal > requirement in some jurisdictions). Note, this list does NOT do this > sort of modification, so doesn't cause that sort of problem. > > -- > Richard Damon > >
