Re: [dmarc-discuss] [!!Mass Mail]Re: Sub-domain validation

I concur with Franck on this. From: dmarc-discuss [mailto:dmarc-discuss-boun...@dmarc.org] On Behalf Of Franck Martin via dmarc-discuss Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 4:55 PM To: Brotman, Alexander Cc: dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org Subject: [!!Mass Mail]Re: [dmarc-discuss] Sub-domain validation

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

>dmarc.fail is an interesting approach, however the spam filters aren't the >concern that's >being raised here, user education is. Teach people that >my.fri...@real.domain.some-unfamiliar-stuff is a reasonable email address to >receive >email from (vs. teaching them to treat that as extremely

[dmarc-discuss] DMARC reports

Does anyone maintain a list of receivers known to send DMARC reports? I enabled DMARC reporting for a domain we use for sending and have gotten reports so far from 126.com, AOL, Belgacom, CapitalOne, Cisco, Comcast, FastMail, Google, Infor, Microsoft, mail.ru, NetEase (163.com), QQ,and Yahoo.

Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC reports

This is a fairly good list of potential DMARC senders: https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-status/ Cheers, ~ *MATT VERNHOUT* Founder, Editor EmailKarma.net It's not the size of your list, it's how you use it! My profiles:

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

>I'd prefer: > >From: Foo list [Jane Smith] >CC: Jane Smith Given that most MUAs these days don't show the e-mail address at all, it's hard to see why that would be better. >- violating the principle of least astonishment[1] (wait, the list operator

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

Scott Kitterman wrote: > So I hear what you're saying, but it doesn't change my mind. I guess if the > large providers think this is useful, then meh, OK, That would be the guys who receive more than half of the world's email? I would rank that slightly above "meh", but sure, for small guys

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

John Levine wrote: >>I'd prefer: >> >>From: Foo list [Jane Smith] >>CC: Jane Smith > > Given that most MUAs these days don't show the e-mail address > at all, it's hard to see why that would be better. Granted, it's a fine point. >> 1: Reply-To: appears

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Experience 16 days with DMARC

> On Feb 10, 2016, at 1:55 AM, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > > I'd suggest a few things: > > - You're looking a little too closely at daily changes, particularly around > implementation time. Allow the thing some time to settle, perhaps a month, >

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 07:17:31 AM Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: > Scott, > > You're [still!] confusing multiple conceptions of trust, including at least: > > 1) trust in the intention and ability of multiple upstream forwarders to > ARC-sign correctly, > 2) trust in the lack

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

John Levine wrote: > How is this different from everyone's favorite alleged mailing list > solution? > > From: Foo list on behalf of Jane Smith ... > PS: well, other than it's a little more explicit about where the > responsibility lies That is the difference. I'd prefer:

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

> On Feb 10, 2016, at 6:37 PM, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > > John Levine wrote: > >> How is this different from everyone's favorite alleged mailing list >> solution? >> >> From: Foo list on behalf of Jane Smith > ... >> PS: well, other