----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Fenton" <fen...@bluepopcorn.net> > To: dmarc@ietf.org > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 2:27:33 PM > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] FYI: AOL Mail updates DMARC policy to 'reject' >
> > 3. DMARC is basically an anti-phishing technology, whereas while DKIM + > > ADSP can do that, it doesn't do it as well. It's less intuitive to end > > users. And because DMARC is better for anti-phishing, I would guess that's > > why it has much better traction that ADSP ever could. Speaking for a > > large(ish) email provider, DKIM is good but stopping phishing is better. > > I'd like to understand why DMARC is "better for anti-phishing". But > let's not turn this into a DMARC-vs-ADSP argument. And in either case, > it shouldn't be intuitive to end users; it shouldn't even be visible to > them. > ADSP did not provide any reporting. With failure reports and even aggregate reports the person most interested to stop the phishing (the brand), get the data to pursue the phish on a multitude of avenues. >From the old "a user reported a phish" to DMARC today "there has been 100k >email phish caught by these providers", it changes your perspective and >priorities. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
