Larry, even a non-profit has to consider that something bought and paid for does not last forever. Not a commercial software package, nor the physical hardware it runs on. It wasn't due to DMARC, it would be due to something else. I'd suggest changing your stance before you end up the Last Man Standing....you can nudge people away from Yahoo today, perhaps. Maybe even tomorrow. But that is going to stop working, because more and more sites are rolling out DMARC.
-- Al Iverson - Minneapolis - (312) 275-0130 Simple DNS Tools since 2008: xnnd.com www.spamresource.com & aliverson.com On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Jacob Evans via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > Wouldn't you just upgrade? > > http://www.lsoft.com/news/2014/listserv160-2014a-us.asp > > Not to mention you could easily patch your spoofing problem by relaying off > a postfix server to do the header manipulation for compliance. > > Otherwise, DMARC is as good as SPF, solves the problem, but not respected > and worthless. It's up to people like yahoo and gmail to 'bully' compliance, > forcing some standardizations, just like they are doing with FCrDNS and > IPv6.... > > -Jake > > ________________________________ > From: "Larry Finch via dmarc-discuss" <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> > To: "Nicolás via dmarc-discuss" <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:46:31 PM > Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Office 365 does not repect dmarc rejection > policy!? > > > > > On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:13 AM, Jacob Evans <dmarc-li...@jacobdevans.com> > wrote: > > Larry, > ....host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[2607:f8b0:400e:c01::1b] said: 550-5.7.1 > Unauthenticated email from appalachiatech.com is not accepted due to > 550-5.7.1 domain's DMARC policy. Please contact administrator of > appalachiatech 550-5.7.1 .com domain if this was a legitimate mail. > Please > visit 550-5.7.1 https://support.google.com/mail/answer/2451690 to learn > about DMARC 550 5.7.1 initia...... > -Jake > > ________________________________ > > > I manage 15 listserv mailing lists on a non-profit server site. We do not > play games to make our outgoing messages DMARC compliant, because it would > require updating our listserv license at a cost of $6,000, and our annual > budget is $1,500. Mail from ISPs with a REJECT policy are delivered to our > gmail addressees, but marked as potential spam. But once the user approves > them future messages from a list are delivered without warnings. They are > still not delivered to ISPs that respect the REJECT policy, of course. But > Microsoft is not a problem either. We have solved any DMARC issues by not > allowing users of ISPs with REJECT policies to post directly, although > occasionally one gets through. Instead, a moderator intercepts the message > and reposts it. And asks the sender to stop using Yahoo. Most have complied. > > Larry > > -- > Larry Finch > finc...@portadmiral.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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) > > _______________________________________________ > 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
