> -----Original Message----- > From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 9:30 AM > To: dmarc@ietf.org; Ietf Dkim > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less kludge alternative to > draft- > kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts > > On 11/16/2016 1:09 PM, Terry Zink wrote: > >> This means ARC will be needed not only for mailing lists which modify > >> the header or body of an email, but for EVERY mailing list and EVERY > >> forwarded email or EVERYTIME the recipient has been modified and the > >> email leaves the ADMD boundary. From a DMARC point of view DKIM will > >> not be needed anymore because it has now the same function as SPF - > >> verifiying the origin of direct emails - and SPF is easier to implement for > most administrators. > > > > +1. > > > > It basically (almost) turns DKIM into SPF. That's not that appealing a > solution. > > For exclusive policies (SPF -ALL), you really don't need DKIM, DMARC or ARC > for that matter since the receiver (at least ours) will never accept the > payload > anyway, i.e. it never gets to the SMTP "DATA" > state. SPF does not require you to accept the mail for the hard reject policy > (-ALL). >
Hector, the reality is that most mailbox providers do not reject on SPF -all because so many senders don't understand what they are "saying" with -all and the mailbox providers are the ones who get the complaints about mail not getting delivered. THAT is reality. Mike _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
