Scott Kitterman writes:
> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 05:00:43 AM Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > Sure, but that's the tail wagging the dog. The point of DMARC is so
> > that people can put their addresses in From and be believed, not that
> > there are kludges to get your content past DMARC.
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 05:00:43 AM Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
> > From: "$CUSTOMER_FRIENDLY_NAME"
> > To: $DELIVERY_ADDRESS
> > Reply-To: "$CUSTOMER_FRIENDLY_NAME" <$CUSTOMER_ADDRESS>
>
> This won't work for a lot of mailing lists, though, because Reply-To
> is mu
Scott Kitterman writes:
> From: "$CUSTOMER_FRIENDLY_NAME"
> To: $DELIVERY_ADDRESS
> Reply-To: "$CUSTOMER_FRIENDLY_NAME" <$CUSTOMER_ADDRESS>
This won't work for a lot of mailing lists, though, because Reply-To
is munged to point to the list, and it is frequently a requirement of
such lists tha
On Mar 30, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I just ran across this one today in a third party non-spam email:
>
> Return-Path:
> ...
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;
>d=email.mindbodyonline.com;
>h=from:to:reply-to:subject:mime-version:content-type; s=
I just ran across this one today in a third party non-spam email:
Return-Path:
...
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;
d=email.mindbodyonline.com;
h=from:to:reply-to:subject:mime-version:content-type; s=smtpapi;
...
Received: from o2.email.mindbodyonline.com (o2.email.mi
Murray,
Thanks for your comments. The key difference today is that we have
finally achieved the long term engineering considerations of:
1) Getting domains to publish DNS policy records,
2) Receivers performing the DNS policy record lookup,
3) Receivers honoring the mail handling.
We di
