This sounds quite "normal" in my experience.
I started using DMARC for exactly this reason, when one of my domains
experienced increased spoofing attacks. In the years since, I've witnessed this
scenario play out in a dozen other domains I manage for my clients. In every
case, deploying DMARC
Whoah there!
This thread has been hijacked by the lack of reading comprehension. Nobody (in
this thread) has complained of DMARC reports being too large.
The problem in this thread is an issue with some DMARC report senders failing
to parse the DMARC URIs properly, if that DMARC URI includes si
On May 10, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss
wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> On 5/9/2014 7:10 PM, Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss wrote:
>>> This feels like complaining for complaining's sake.
>>
>> You think that it's irrelevant that a mailing archiv
On Jun 6, 2014, at 1:59 PM, J. Gomez via dmarc-discuss
wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I cannot stop thinking that the push-back against MLMs rewriting the
> Header-From is akin to the push-back of about 28 years ago from some people
> against the move to consider SMTP open-relays harmful.
>
> Clos
On Jun 8, 2014, at 8:50 AM, Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Again, closing relays carried an entirely adequate alternative via port
>> 587 for authorized users. No such equivalence is available when DMARC
>> breaks mailing list use
On Jun 9, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy via dmarc-discuss
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Larry Finch wrote:
>> User education (if that is possible) is the best defense.
>
> I seem to recall a presentation some years ago that discovered over 18% of
> users go through thei
On Aug 24, 2014, at 5:18 AM, Nicolás via dmarc-discuss
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm new to DMARC, I configured it just a bunch of days ago, and even that I
> think it's a great idea, I'm worried about its limitations over mailing
> lists. I've read the FAQ about this, and I'm not quite clear about w
On Aug 24, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Larry Finch via dmarc-discuss
wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Matt Simerson via dmarc-discuss
> wrote:
>
>> On lists you don't manage, there is little you can do besides pester the
>> list operator and ask them to make their
On Aug 24, 2014, at 4:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/24/2014 4:20 PM, Matt Simerson via dmarc-discuss wrote:
>>
>> DMARC only blocks phish *from* domains that publish strong DMARC
>> policies to receivers that validate and enforce those strong
>> policies.
>
