A small follow up about my DMARC view: > On Jun 30, 2023, at 4:02 PM, Hector Santos > <hsantos=40isdg....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Overall, imo, it is never a good idea to exerted changes on domains with bis > specs, requiring them to change their current DMARC record to reinforce the > security level they want using SPF in DMARC evaluation. >
I don’t want surprises. Higher support cost. But is DMARC that “messed up?” I mean, just like ADSP, it is abandonment material, honestly, easy. But DMARC is big and it did one thing for the mail industry — the Lookup added to the SMTP process. Moat SMTP receivers will do the the _dmarc.from-domain lookup. DMARC is the #1 lookup record for this purpose, a DKIM Policy Model. We said very early on that but will take a while to get traction for a DKIM Policy model where lookups come with a good payoff, otherwise it is just wasted calls. Let’s leverage the lookup using a protocol language for a wide security coverage that offers dynamic rejection to clean the mail stream before passing it to local proprietary reputation databases. Happy July 4th, Be safe. — HLS _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
