On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Anne Bennett <a...@encs.concordia.ca> wrote:
> > Michael Hammer writes: > >> A person who used to be active in the email space once >> told me that the extent to which messages are placed in >> quarantine/junk/spam folders is a reflection of how well >> or poorly the systems evaluating the mail work. If it works >> really well then nothing should end up in quarantine /junk/spam >> folders. > > The number of messages sorted as "not sure" is hardly the > best or only measure of how well the system works; to take > the above to an extreme, if I reject all mail, does my system > work perfectly? ;-) > > But yes, the ideal situation is where we sort every message > correctly and unambiguously. Meanwhile... > > Even if we grant that "p=quarantine is a problem WE cause", > the fact is that until we have a *good* solution for mailing > lists, most of us don't dare publish p=reject, which leaves us > with p=none, or no DMARC records at all. Which means that (a) > many of us cannot benefit from using DMARC under the current > circumstances, and (b) many sites don't have the resources to > implement it yet, but we still have to deal with their mail. > I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Mailing lists are only an issue if the domain owner of the email addresses of the participants have published a DMARC p=reject record, despite having actual users who are legitimate source of email that fails authentication. That's a small enough set of domains at the moment (I can think of about five) that there are several obvious solutions for mailing lists - a blacklist of DMARC records to treat specially would be the simplest, though something more nuanced might be better. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
