Re: [dmarc-discuss] "p=none" vs. "p=quarantine; pct=0"

> On Oct 9, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Mark Fletcher via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:06 AM Jonathan Kamens via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > I see people behaving badly here in both directions. In my opinion, servers > that do message forwarding should rewrite headers for DMARC

Re: [dmarc-discuss] "p=none" vs. "p=quarantine; pct=0"

> On Oct 9, 2018, at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Kamens via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > > As I'm sure the folks on this list are aware, apparently some ESPs and > software maintainers have chosen to behave differently when forwarding emails > (most notably to mailing lists) depending on whether the

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Spoke too soon. I'm getting reports of IETF list mail from @akamai.com ending up in Gmail spam folders :( > On Jan 31, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Payne, John via dmarc-discuss > <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > > And it did the trick. Down to a manageable number of fa

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

On Jan 19, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss > wrote: Brandon Long wrote: > If you go to p=quarantine and pct=0, Google Groups will still do the > rewriting, but no one > should enforce the quarantine. I know this is

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

> On Jan 17, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Brandon Long via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > > Someone asked a followup question here, and something else occurred to me. > > If you go to p=quarantine and pct=0, Google Groups will still do the > rewriting, but no one should enforce the

Re: [dmarc-discuss] FortiNet’s FortiMail DMARC implementation

> On Nov 14, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Petr Novák via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > > Hello, > > I saw that FortiNet's FortiMail is listed as a product that has a DMARC > support here: "https://dmarc.org/resources/products-and-services/; . > > I wonder what do you guys think

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

> On Oct 26, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > > Payne, John wrote: > > > Yeah, but why are they showing up in _my_ DMARC reports? > ... > > Domain MAIL FROM DKIM domain SPF AuthDKIM Auth > > Total > > akamai.com

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

ix4Yggz3vYMPInHGFa7R0=> until said customer DKIM signs with its own domain (because they want all emails to be authenticated). Yeah, but why are they showing up in _my_ DMARC reports? On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Payne, John via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org<mailto:dmarc-discus

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

> On Sep 27, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Terry Zink via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > >> Somewhat related (to my earlier post) - are there any _enterprises_ on this >> list that have >> experience or are currently attempting to either go p=reject or enforce >> DMARC policies

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

> are they relying on if any? > Are they enforcing DMARC policies inbound? > > >> As for the Gmail question, I think it is linked to the release of ARC. > > So I’ve heard. I hope that turns out to be useful for the rest of us :) > >> >> On Mon, Sep 19

Re: [dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

> On Oct 22, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Payne, John wrote: > > >> On Oct 22, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Andrew Beverley via dmarc-discuss >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 10:19 -0700, Franck Martin via dmarc-discuss >> wrote: >>> The fun is moving to ARC >>>