On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 12:24 PM Jim Fenton <fen...@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:
> On 8/17/20 3:52 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote: > > With a complex organization the only way to get people to change is to > publish a restrictive DMARC policy and then see who comes out of the > woodwork sheepishly admitting that they've been ignoring us for years. > > > > Normal people sending email (especially those who are working with an > ESP, most of which happily send email without any DMARC alignment) do not > comprehend the notion that they should be using a subdomain for their > transactional messages; even when we directly communicate this fact to them > repeatedly. They just don't understand the nuances of email. > > > I thought the DMARC reporting mechanism was there to allow such > organizations to detect those behaviors and get them corrected without > actually causing the damage of a restrictive policy. > One thing we've found useful in this case is controlling the organization from spamming. Which is to say that the org has a policy on approvals and what is allowed to be sent marketing wise, in some parts of the world to comply with laws on such topics, or to be sure the entire org follows the principles and someone new doesn't just poison the pool for everyone else. There are always people who route around restrictions or sometimes don't even bother to look for anything, they'll just hire a third party ESP and spam away. DMARC helps in this case to reduce the success of that and force them back to internal compliance, which relieves the legal burden as well as the negative impacts on delivery and public perception. For folks who just register a new domain name and spam anyways... yeah, well, there are other consequences down the line and other anti-phishing restrictions that kick in at least on our inbound systems.. Brandon
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
