On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > >Are you conceding that receivers sending reports may not find your preferences >terribly important?
They have an obligation, to everyone, to get it right, irregardless of sender preferences. > Noting Google's tendency to personalise results, posting the link to the page > and quoting the text would have been sensible. I'm assuming that you mean, > from https://dmarc.org/wiki/FAQ : > > dmarc.org> DMARC technology is best-suited for transactional emails and > semi-transactional emails. Users that suddenly cannot reach the other members > of a mailing list ... > > This is an obviously correct statement about the current situation; were it > not so, ARC would not exist. Your incorrect statement (still quoted above) > was about what DMARC was designed to do, not about its present status. Please quit judging my statements before you have all the facts. >From (2013-July) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-01 : 1.2. Anti-Phishing DMARC is designed to prevent bad actors from sending mail which claims to come from legitimate senders, particularly senders of transactional email. (official mail that is about business transactions) 2.1. High-Level Goals DMARC is intended to reduce the success of attackers sending mail pretending to be from a domain they do not control, with minimal changes to existing mail handling at both senders and receivers. It is particularly intended to protect transactional email, as opposed to mail between individuals. > > Inconveniently, receivers are generally not interested in funding the high > roads of others. > Then they shouldn't be sending erroneous reports. -Jim P. _______________________________________________ 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)
