On Friday, May 09, 2014 7:12 PM [GMT+1=CET], Michael Adkins via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> On 5/9/14, 9:56 AM, "John R Levine" <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > > > > > It's pretty clear that's what Gmail is doing, probably > > > > automatically via the existing software that manages per-user > > > > spam filter rules. > > > > > > I disagree. What¹s clear is that they implemented the exemption > > > conditions as defined in the spec when they initially deployed it > > > years ago. > > > > When Yahoo first published p=reject, Gmail was rejecting mail with > > yahoo.com addresses. (We have logs.) Now it mostly goes into the > > spam folder. I don't see how an exemption set up a year ago would > > do that. > > There is a big difference between having an existing exemption process > that starts identifying more things due to changes other people make, > and > changing the way your system works. You are attempting to assert the > later about someone else’s system based purely on speculation. When you have an exemption process to be able to whitelist some Senders which fail a DMARC check, and then you change that whitelist to be a wildcard, I would call it "changing the way your system works". It is clear YAHOO and AOL have watered down the value, meaning and trustworthiness of "p=reject", therefore the proper whitelist for DMARC checking when it fails for p=reject domains is now an all-encompassing wildcard and just pipe the info as scoring input into your-next-filtering-step as a Receiver. It seems to me that is exactly what GMAIL is doing. > Please let people explain how their systems actually work. I didn't see Mr Levine interrupting other people's explanaition about their systems. I saw him filling a glaring void of explanations about those, with valuable guessing about how other people's systems probably work based on real world observable data he has logged. Regards, J.Gomez _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
