On May 9, 2014, at 2:42 PM, Michael Adkins via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
> > > On 5/9/14, 2:20 PM, "J. Gomez" <jgo...@seryrich.com> wrote: > >> It is clear YAHOO and AOL have watered down the value, meaning and >> trustworthiness of "p=reject" > > Yes, I understand that that is your opinion. I have yet to see any > evidence of actual system changes to support it. I haven¹t had to make > any changes to mine, but I recognize that a system on a scale of millions > of active users doesn¹t have the same challenges as one with hundreds of > millions of active users. I am asking for the people who actually run > those systems to share what they have actually done, not for people who > don¹t to speculate about it. > I did not change anything either on our DMARC implementation, pre and post yahoo. Our DMARC implementation is public by the way.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ 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)
