----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Kitterman" <skl...@kitterman.com> > To: dmarc@ietf.org > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 7:11:14 AM > Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Indirect Mail Flow Solution Utility Analysis >
> Another example of a potential solution is receivers amalgamating data from > across their user base to identify forwarders and utilize a local policy > override to not reject DMARC fail messages assessed to be sent via an > indirect > mail flow. This is supported by the DMARC specification, but it's not > something > that Receiver/Small is going to be able to do. It's only really useful for > Receiver/Big. It should be included in the family of solutions, but it could > not be said to 'solve' the indirect mail flow problem since it doesn't scale > down. Was not in dmarc-interoperability, surprisingly, added _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
