Also to start with dmarc, you need to stop the leak on your outbound email flow . Spf with -all will show how clear the companies are when it comes to understanding who sends outbound emails using their servers. It’s an easy decision then to implement dmarc
On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 at 12:58 AM, John Levine via dmarc-discuss < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > It appears that Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss <ves...@tana.it> said: > >Study on Domain Name System (DNS) abuse : technical report. Appendix 1, > 2022 > >https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/473317 > > > >Chapter 17 of the Appendix (2nd link above) contains data on SPF and > DMARC. > > > >The DMARC part says that 8,129,795 out of 246,425,997 domains exhibit a > DMARC > >record (3.3%). Parsing DMARC records shows that 49.68% of the domain > names > >with the DMARC record has p=none, 11.20% have p=quarantine, and 37.14% > have > >p=reject. > > I wish they'd also looked at how many domains have MX records, or had SPF > -all. > > I can't get too worried about no DMARC on a domain that doesn't send or > recieve mail. > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc-discuss mailing list > dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss > > NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well > terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) > -- Regards Ahsan
_______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
