RemoveEl 9 jul. 2019 9:00 a. m., dmarc-discuss-requ...@dmarc.org escribió:Send dmarc-discuss mailing list submissions to
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
or, via email, send a message with
11:30 AM
> *To:* Paul Rock
> *Cc:* T Nguyen; dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> *Subject:* Re: [dmarc-discuss] help!
>
> That is a mistake a LOT of senders make, and it's often the fault of their
> ESP which provided incomplete or even wrong information.
> Just to reinforce what P
>> * ​*
>> **
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Zachary Aab
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 9, 2019 10:25 AM
>> *To:* T Nguyen
>> *Cc:* Paul Rock; dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [dmarc-discuss]
Implement DKIM with as many of your third parties as possible. Most have
now realised that they can do their own key-rotation if they simply
specify two CNAME records for you to put into your zone file (rather
than issue you a key, or have you issue them one). Third-party SPF will
generally
SPF authentication only, no dkim just yet. As domain controller owner we have
issue with multiple third party application email senders, which fail
specifically our spf authentication. with too many third party email
applications that overwhelms our spf records. Since these application email
> 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
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,
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
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
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
What is a DMARC syntax error? (Which tool gave this? What operation was
it performing at the time?)
Yes,
example.com TXT "v=spf1 -all"
_dmarc.example.com "v=DMARC1; p=reject;"
is a reasonable way to announce that a domain can never be used for
sending email.
- Roland
On 26/09/18
John Levine skrev den 29-09-2012 06:13:
On a bad day, I've gotten 300,000 bounced back messages due to
spammers forging my addresses. How many are you seeing?
could you be less sakastisk here ?
___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
12 matches
Mail list logo
