Steven M Jones wrote:
> Some of your subdomains may send infrequently, and you may not know what
> all of them are until end of month/quarter. Depending on what's
> happening with the parent domain, this odd-looking policy might be your
> better option for the interim.
Certainly, but that's also
Povl Hessellund wrote:
> We are not alone here. We have all sorts of systems like newsletters (they do
> DKIM etc),
> HR system, time registration system, other misc systems. Maybe it is 10
> subdomains only,
> and maybe we should just create DMARC record for all of them with p=none -
> and
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 02:35, Petr Novák via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in this specific case I was just testing our mail server with all
> possible DMARC settings and I always tried the same test case on gmail
> to see how they handle that.
>
> I actually used "p=reject sp=none" on one
Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
> On 12-12-16 07:47, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote:
>> it's not at all clear why "p=reject sp=none" would ever be a good idea.
>
> actually I have two customers using mail for both their office automation
> and for business processes. Both of them use their domain
On 12/12/2016 02:35, Petr Novák via dmarc-discuss wrote:
>
> I actually used "p=reject sp=none" on one domain for a while. The
> problem was I managed mail server for the main domain but I didnt have
> access to any of the subdomains. It took some time to find out which
> subdomains are used for
Am 12.12.2016 um 08:52 schrieb Povl Hessellund Pedersen via dmarc-discuss:
> ...need some 3rd party system to send e-mail. Some of these companies, even
> best of breed in their specific area, does not know anything about e-mail,
> RFC etc.
Yep, it amazes me sometimes. Well, a lot of times. -
On 12-12-16 07:47, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote:
John Levine wrote:
>>John Levine wrote:
>>
>>> This would be a good time to reread RFC 7489, particularly section
>>> 6.6.3, and very particularly numbered item 3 in that section.
>>
>>This is simply the DNS record discovery mechanism.
