In article <10c441a53dec4277a3153ed8d89d3...@bayviewphysicians.com> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Murray, I have most recently used this link at AOL/Yahoo: >https://postmaster.verizonmedia.com/sender-request > >I have considered using the more complete "Complaint Feedback Loop", >https://postmaster.verizonmedia.com/cfl-request >but have never completed the process.
Complaint feedback loops just mean you say (perhaps with verification) that you're the contact for this range of IPs or domain names, and if a user presses the Junk button, the system can send you a copy of the report. It's not whitelisting, and it only covers about the first quarter inch of the long tail. Some years back people kept asking Spamhaus to set up a whitelist, so they hired me to do it. Technically it worked fine, but it soon became apparent that the only people who were interested weren't people who we'd want to whitelist. The good quality senders get their mail delivered already, the terrible ones didn't bother, and all we heard from were people who sometimes sent some spam along with the good mail but assured us they were nice people. (Many universities fall into this category.) I think you'll find that all of the existing whitelist like things are a sideshow to the company's real business of deliverability consulting. For DMARC, it would be nice if there were a shared list of credible forwarders, not to automatically accept their mail, but just to say they're good enough that you can believe what's in their ARC seals when you're doing the usual spam filtering. You can't just let people sign themselves up for a list like that, since every dodgy bulk mailer will figure this will get them an extra 2% delivery, and we've never gotten past a vague hope that we could canvass people we know to make a combined set of mailing lists hosts we know. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
