On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 6:55 AM Laura Atkins <la...@wordtothewise.com> wrote:
> > I’m not sure why deliverability people are even mentioned here. The > problems with DMARC primarily affect one-to-one or one-to-few mails, not > bulk mails. The breakage DMARC causes doesn’t really affect marketing, > newsletters or anything else sent through automated systems. I mean, yeah, > some folks aren’t going to get their bulk mails because of DMARC failures > but mail fails all the times for lots of different reasons. > > > Perhaps Autumn's use case and its mention of a bank that can't do DKIM signing lead me down a path that may never be followed. Where my mind went was to a place where an ESP was employed by a brand to send mail, either bulk or transactional (or both), and such mail was sent with the ESP domain as the domain in the "Sender:" field and the brand's domain as the domain in the "From:" field (or vice versa), with each domain publishing DMARC records. In such a scenario, it's possible that conflicting DMARC validation results could occur, leading to the concern over how such things might be handled. If this is not a possible use case for these header fields, then please accept my apologies for bringing deliverability into the discussion. -- *Todd Herr* | Sr. Technical Program Manager *e:* todd.h...@valimail.com *p:* 703.220.4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
