On 6/7/2014 4:23 PM, Larry Finch via dmarc-discuss wrote: > If my post implied criticism of you I apologize.
Larry, I didn't take it as criticism,but wanted to check for confusion. Anyhow, thanks for being sensitive. > I was simply building on your observation ack. > The workarounds thus far deployed for mailing lists (from both L-Soft > and Mailman) are really ugly, and make lists harder to use for all > users of lists. It would be worth documenting both the nature of how they are harder to use and the extent of the effect. There is a widely held view that the only effect is a bit of visual ugliness, rather than of any serious user detriment. > but I have seen no > decrease in the incidence of phishing emails since Yahoo and AOL > deployed p=reject. My banks and other financial institutions have > also deployed DMARC p=reject, and I still get several > convincing-looking phishing emails a week. I can recognize them > instantly, but apparently many Internet users cannot. I could also > recognize them before DMARC was implemented, so DMARC provided no > benefit to me. So from the perspective of an end user DMARC is a > failure. Hmmm. Many folk claim large and wonderful benefit. And here we have a claim to the contrary. We need to find a way to get objective and comparable information about this. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ 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)
