On 8/7/21 3:17 am, Jonathan Kamens via dmarc-discuss wrote:
It's not useful to come back and say, "Well, I mean, if they did
things differently, then this wouldn't be an issue." They're not doing
things differently, and they don't want to do things differently. It's
our job to facilitate them
On 8/7/21 2:11 am, Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> A mailbox provider is only one of the service providers that an organisation
> might contract to send email on its behalf. Other common examples include:
>
> * Marketing automation (list management, sending mailouts, analytics)
It appears that Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss said:
>I see. I note that the examples you mention, except some kind of marketing,
>need to receive mail, besides sending it. Indeed, being bidirectional is a
>peculiar email characteristics. So, if a service can be integrated with a
On 7/7/21 2:11 PM, Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss wrote:
On Wed 07/Jul/2021 15:19:35 +0200 Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote:
A mailbox provider is only one of the service providers that an
organisation might contract to send email on its behalf. Other common
examples include:
*
On Wed 07/Jul/2021 15:19:35 +0200 Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote:
On 7/7/21 4:03 pm, Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss wrote:
If I outsourced my mail to google (to stick to the example) what other
providers' SPF record do I have to include? Oh yes, John said "to several
providers".
On 7/7/21 4:03 pm, Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss wrote:
If I outsourced my mail to google (to stick to the example) what other
providers' SPF record do I have to include? Oh yes, John said "to several
providers". Why does one need more than one provider, then?
A mailbox provider is
On Wed 07/Jul/2021 07:33:57 +0200 Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote:
On 7/7/21 2:57 am, John Levine via dmarc-discuss wrote:
It appears that Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss said:
I'd suggest that a resolution to this might be to expand the finite limit (I've
also had trouble with the
On 7/7/21 2:57 am, John Levine via dmarc-discuss wrote:
It appears that Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss said:
>> I'd suggest that a resolution to this might be to expand the finite limit (I've
>> also had trouble with the 10 lookup limit, even for a small organisation),
>
>Why do
It appears that Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss said:
>> I'd suggest that a resolution to this might be to expand the finite limit
>> (I've
>> also had trouble with the 10 lookup limit, even for a small organisation),
>
>Why do organizations need more than 10 lookups? Do they have a
On Tue 06/Jul/2021 02:55:23 +0200 Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote:
On 22/5/21 7:41 am, Brandon Long via dmarc-discuss wrote:
At least at one point we definitely saw enough senders requiring too many
lookups that we cared more about
trying to find a positive evaluation than downside from
On 22/5/21 7:41 am, Brandon Long via dmarc-discuss wrote:
I think the limits in the RFC are overly restrictive... as a receiver,
I don't see any issue with having a
much higher limit, you waste fairly minimal resources in that
regard... there may be an issue in the large
as a DoS type attack,
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 1:08 PM John Levine via dmarc-discuss <
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
> It appears that Alexander NAZARIAN via dmarc-discuss <
> alexander.nazar...@gmail.com> said:
> >So I want to understand whether having MX placed in the beginning of SPF
> >record can cause a quicker
It appears that Alexander NAZARIAN via dmarc-discuss
said:
>So I want to understand whether having MX placed in the beginning of SPF
>record can cause a quicker reach of '10 DNS lookup limitation' for G Suite
>senders, due to the reason that G Suite has 5 MX records (and I assume that
>number of
Alexander NAZARIAN via dmarc-discuss wrote on 2021-05-18 20:40:
Different online SPF checkers show different results.
> [...]
>
So, looks that mailbox providers count MX mechanism as 1 lookup (no
matter how many hostnames MX record resolves to) and dmarcanalyzer.com
Greetings.
I have a dummy domain for DNS records testing - 'edrc.top', with the
following SPF test record:
v=spf1 mx ptr include:_spf.google.com include:spf.smtp2go.com -all
What would be the correct number of DNS lookups (queries) that will be
performed during SPF record parsing at the time of
15 matches
Mail list logo
