mail I read, and I am pleased to have been corrected (and apologised
accordingly).
But pointing and laughing at your users and suggesting that they are
ignorant rubes is what causes people to turn their backs. I am not
going to apologise for being offended by that. It's a nasty thing to
d
t regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@crankycanuck.ca
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:57:32AM -0800, Alan Hodgson wrote:
> That wouldn't help; DMARC policies are based on the From: header.
This is why DKIM and DMARC are different, just to be clear.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@crankycanuck.ca
me sucks from
my POV.
None of this is intended to denigrate the many hours of donated time
or the good intentions or even the good idea of getting away from mj2.
But I think it's hard to claim that more warning is bad, particularly
in the absence of a test universe on which to do A/B tests.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@crankycanuck.ca
erse, plus "everybody else", you're right.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@crankycanuck.ca
rtant
for people behind gmail and yahoo and so on -- make that feature not
really work, AFAICT. I think that part of DKIM is busted, and the
authors of it I've talked to seem to agree.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@crankycanuck.ca
in the future the mail is
going to change (the same announcement as was sent) would help?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
