To play devil's advocate: it doesn't explicitly provide unsubscribe
instructions directly in the email itself. A non-savvy user likely wouldn't
think to follow the non-obvious info link in the footer. And not all mail
clients make use of the list-unsubscribe header.
That said... why would any
On 2016-12-24 12:15 PM, Jim Garrison via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> How did the DKIM signature 'pass'? What does the disposition=none
> mean? Did Google not reject the email?
Sounds to me like you may have the wrong idea of DMARC's mechanics. Only one of
DKIM and SPF has to pass for DMARC to pass.
On 2016-12-23 10:09 AM, Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> When I look at the few failure reports that I receive, they all consist of
> headers only - but all headers, not just a few. They do not include a
> single line of the body.
> So your proposal would just describe the reality - or
Has there been any discussion about using DMARC to configure spam complaint
feedback loops? Currently it is only feasible to register for the big ESPs and
can be tough to keep them up to date. DMARC could make this automatic and
universal. It would be well within DMARC's mandate of domain
Howdy list,
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the "*groan* we know" gods...
Since hardly anyone sends forensic reports, is there any secret sauce I'm
missing that helps you track down issues? If DMARC reports mentioned the sender
username at least, then I would know which user to speak to
