Re: [dmarc-discuss] Fwd: Re: Help

In article <869d643b-7594-4bad-8929-9afdea01d...@portadmiral.org> you write: >Yes, there are folks who don’t know. I am an administrator for 17 mailing >lists using different technologies, >and I belong to several more. Mailman is different from Yahoo Groups is >different from Google Groups is

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help

> On Sep 26, 2018, at 5:40 PM, Jonathan Knopp via dmarc-discuss > wrote: > > To play devil's advocate: it doesn't explicitly provide unsubscribe > instructions directly in the email itself. A non-savvy user likely wouldn't > think to follow the non-obvious info link in the footer. And not

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Fwd: Re: Help

To play devil's advocate: it doesn't explicitly provide unsubscribe instructions directly in the email itself. A non-savvy user likely wouldn't think to follow the non-obvious info link in the footer. And not all mail clients make use of the list-unsubscribe header. That said... why would any

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Fwd: Re: Help

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:22 PM Lawrence Finch via dmarc-discuss < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > > > On Sep 26, 2018, at 5:11 PM, Brandon Long wrote: > > Wait, folks are on this list who don't know the basics? > > Ie: > List-Unsubscribe: , >

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Fwd: Re: Help

> On Sep 26, 2018, at 5:11 PM, Brandon Long wrote: > > Wait, folks are on this list who don't know the basics? > > Ie: > List-Unsubscribe: >, >

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Fwd: Re: Help

Wait, folks are on this list who don't know the basics? Ie: List-Unsubscribe: , on every message? Also, the link in the footer, http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss, has a section that is the same on all mailman lists: To

[dmarc-discuss] Fwd: Re: Help

Hello, Would someone please be kind enough to tell me how to Unsubscribe from these emails ? Thank you. Carl Bongaerts    Tel: 416-831-7841 Forwarded Message Subject:Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 19:06:25 + From: T Nguyen via dmarc-discuss

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help

In article you write: >Might be better to have an MX record that points to localhost, because >if you have an A record but no MX, people will just try to connect to >the A record. There's an RFC for that: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7505 R's, John -- Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com,

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help

Use a null mx instead. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7505 On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 8:43 AM Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > Might be better to have an MX record that points to localhost, because > if you have an A record but no MX, people will just try to connect to

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help

Might be better to have an MX record that points to localhost, because if you have an A record but no MX, people will just try to connect to the A record. Though I've never tried it for domains that lack an MX DNS entry, I do think overall that DMARC (and SPF) are both good things to configure

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help

The sub/domain should be protected by the DMARC record even without an MX record, I can't find anything in the RFC to say otherwise and some senders (mostly marketing, ime) use 5322.from domains with no MX records and a "Reply-to:" header with a working domain. >Could the syntax error caused by