Barry Warsaw writes:
> It will probably make no difference, but if we can inform users as
> to the real culprits in this mess, they can either complain to
> their ISPs or vote with their feet and find a new provider. That
> won't happen if they continue to blame the list software or site.
On 11/07/2016 06:05 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> With some verbiage massaging perhaps, I am supportive of a "hammer" option
> such as this. Maybe we can't enable it by default, but I don't think it's
> unreasonable for site/list admins to be able to be more proactive in their
> rejection of such
On Nov 06, 2016, at 05:39 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>Maybe it's time to default to rejecting posts from p=reject domains,
>with the explanatory message:
>
>Your domain publishes a "p=reject" DMARC policy, which is a
>statement to recipients that they allow you to send only
>
Removing known MM-DEV subscribers, the CC list is getting long.
David Andrews writes:
> At 11:06 AM 11/5/2016, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>
> >However, I've just become aware that Microsoft has implemented another
> >"feature". [...] one of the tests is the To: and
> >From: addresses are the same.
At 11:06 AM 11/5/2016, Mark Sapiro wrote:
However, I've just become aware that Microsoft has implemented another
"feature". So far, the info I have is this is limited to their "hosted
mail services", but it may well spread. What they are doing is looking
at incoming mail for signs of
On 10/31/2016 03:08 PM, Eric Searcy wrote:
>
> That reminds me. I have a proposed idea for another nice-to-have, that
> I'm mentioning now in case it has any impact on the architecture you are
> describing. Some email systems (e.g. Exchange) do not accept any
> inbound email crossing their edge
