In article <8f438ed3-88cb-58dd-6a12-630e4000e...@tana.it>, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: >> The entire problem with catering to the long tail is that it is holding >> hostage >> better email security. We should stop doing that. There is no right to >> stasis >> forevermore. If the scouts email breaks, they can get somebody to fix it. >> They >> will thank us in the long run when scammers can't phish using them as a prop.
I agree too. I'm pretty sure there are more small organizations using provider e-mail addresses than little private mail servers sending less than 1000 messages a day, so let's declare both of those out of scope. Or maybe not. >I agree. Setting p=none makes DMARC non-actionable. I, for one, keep p=none >because of mailing lists. I keep it because none of my domains are particular phish targets and I would prefer to get my mail delivered, even the part of it that DMARC can't describe. R's, John PS: This really is off in the weeds, isn't it? _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
