On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 1:14 PM David Bustos <da...@bustos.name> wrote:
> John wrote: > > It appears that Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> said: > > >On May 30, 2022 9:50:05 PM UTC, David Bustos <da...@bustos.name> wrote: > > >>Since I own david.bustos.name, someone forwards da...@bustos.name for > me; I presume Verisign does. > > >> > > >>Lately I think email receivers have been quarantining my messages and > I suspect the reason is SPF. > > > > Forwarding is pretty broken these days. Even if you had perfect SPF, a > lot of your incoming > > mail would fail DMARC because a lot of DMARC policies depend on SPF and > SPF can't deal with forwarded mail. > > I'm talking about outgoing mail, not incoming mail. > I believe John uses "incoming" in referring to receivers. > > > > Specifically, no SPF record is > > >published for bustos.name . I asked Verisign to publish one and they > declined. > > > > I'm not surprised. The registry contract with ICANN forbids it. > > Is the contract available for me to read? > > You would need to ask ICANN or the registry. This is the IETF working > group for DMARC. > > > In any event, I agree with Scott, your special case is not special to > everyone else. How about using > > the address da...@david.bustos.name and getting your hosting provider > to manage your mail? > > This special case was committed to by TLD regulators back in 2002 and it > is a problem for everyone with a third level .name domain. That's probably > not many people, but the current situation is inconsistent so I am trying > to figure out if any increases in consistency are possible. > It sounds like your beef is with the registry and ICANN. Nothing to do with IETF and this working group. > > Yes, if no changes are possible then I may need to abandon > da...@bustos.name . > If you want changes to that agreement you will not find satisfaction in this working group. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
