On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 5:53 PM John R Levine wrote:
> >>> It is a problem when receiving servers use DMARC existence and
> >>> pass/fail to increase/decrease deliverability rates. - And when
> >>> Yahoo/AOL pretty much block everything you send - even with a 98
> >>> sender score, SPF, DKIM,
On 3/25/2021 2:23 PM, John R Levine wrote:
While I am not opposed to a future tweak to DMARC to add some way to
say
that A can sign for B, even if we did it, it would be a long time if
ever
that DMARC verifiers implement it. RFC 6541 added a third-party
signature
option to DKIM in 2012, and
" I explained the downside to Sender a few messages back: it lets people put
any address they want in the From line so it becomes just a filter on the
reputation of the DKIM or SPF domain. If that were adequate, they wouldn't
have invented DMARC."
Not using the 'authorization of specific
It is a problem when receiving servers use DMARC existence and
pass/fail to increase/decrease deliverability rates. - And when
Yahoo/AOL pretty much block everything you send - even with a 98
sender score, SPF, DKIM, and clean opt-in lists.
Are they rejecting on DMARC failure because you're
>> It is a problem when receiving servers use DMARC existence and
>> pass/fail to increase/decrease deliverability rates. - And when
>> Yahoo/AOL pretty much block everything you send - even with a 98
>> sender score, SPF, DKIM, and clean opt-in lists.
>Are they rejecting on DMARC failure
It is a problem when receiving servers use DMARC existence and pass/fail
to increase/decrease deliverability rates. - And when Yahoo/AOL pretty
much block everything you send - even with a 98 sender score, SPF, DKIM,
and clean opt-in lists.
Are they rejecting on DMARC failure because you're
"It sounds like they're asking DMARC to do things it doesn't do. If you can't
ensure that everything sent with your domain on the From line is signed with
your signature, you shouldn't publish a DMARC policy."
It is a problem when receiving servers use DMARC existence and pass/fail to
Calconnect’s TC-CALSPAM group is currently looking at this issue and
yes, the reason is because of real world corporations that use multiple
brands with different domains. Typically employees got a single email
address on one of their domains but often work with people who have
email
