On Jun 7, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Dave Crocker via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
> On 6/7/2014 5:15 PM, Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss wrote: >> Maybe I lost context, but I thought the claim that was being disputed and >> needed assessment was if p=reject was affecting the rate of phishing >> attempts. >> It would seem to me that for that question, a comparison of before/after >> p=reject data would yield some interesting information. > > > ahh. ok. sort of. > > That does get at attempts via the protected path, namely rfc5322.from > field domain. > > However it doesn't permit measuring other aveneues of attack spoofing > the dmarc-using organization. > > A claim that attackers will use work-arounds creates a desire for > measuring use of work-arounds... > But the claim is that these workarounds will mainly happen after you do DMARC p=reject. This data is coming in a not too distant future now.
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)
