In article <14fe18acad53467a8027e680dfc10...@bayviewphysicians.com> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >1) The original assertion, that DMARC creates a conflict with prior >specifications, appears to be undefended and incorrect.
It should not be controversial that DMARC can only describe a subset of valid Internet mail. The problem arises when people then assert that somehow it is our fault that we are sending mail that DMARC can't describe, typically in ways we've been using for decades, long before anyone thought of DMARC. >2) Some of the discussion appeared to resolve around the assertion that DMARC >can have no value. It clearly has value to Verizon, and it apparently has value to banks and Paypal. I can't see that it has much value for me or my users, since it has screwed up all the mailing lists we use, and for whatever reason we're not big phish targets. R's, John PS: My bank chronically sends out real mail that looks like a total phish, e.g., it says there's a dubious charge on your card, click this button if it's real or that button if it's not, with the URL for neither button having any connection to any domain the bank owns. I know it's real because I know enough about the bank business to recognize the subcontractor they use, but jeez. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
