Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains

y employer for me to be that outside help, so it's rare for me to see how badly it can be done by people setting restrictive DMARC policies without knowing what they're doing. Best, Autumn Tyr-Salvia atyrsal...@agari.com Agari Principal Customer Success Engineer

Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains

s, Autumn Tyr-Salvia atyrsal...@agari.com Agari Principal Customer Success Engineer From: dmarc on behalf of Dotzero Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 12:52 PM To: Jesse Thompson Cc: IETF DMARC WG Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differ

Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains

=reject or even p=quarantine policy. Thanks, Autumn Tyr-Salvia atyrsal...@agari.com Agari Principal Customer Success Engineer From: dmarc on behalf of Todd Herr Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 1:58 PM To: John R Levine Cc: IETF DMARC WG Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf

[dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains

, and yet if that's the case, I thought it would be helpful to share a real world scenario that is currently impacted that isn't part of the previously existing discussion around mailing lists. Thanks, Autumn Tyr-Salvia atyrsal...@agari.com Agari Principal Customer Success Engineer

Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=reject

is legitimately from yourbank.com. DMARC was intended to tie together the backend server information with the friendly From: address to prevent abusive spoofing like this, which is very common. Thanks, Autumn Tyr-Salvia atyrsal...@agari.com Agari Principal Customer Success Engineer