On Wed 19/Jul/2023 21:38:44 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On July 19, 2023 5:38:08 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
On Wed 19/Jul/2023 15:25:17 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On July 19, 2023 7:27:00 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
On Wed 19/Jul/2023 08:20:14 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:27 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
1) For evaluators that enforce DMARC against lists, are they willing to
consider any concessions to list traffic? If so, do they favor an
exemption process where the list avoids munging, or an unmunging solution
implemented at their inbound gateway?
How do you determine that an evaluator is enforcing DMARC "against lists"?
That assumes there are lists that don't munge From:. Is that real today?
Most of my list mail is from lists that don't.
Oops, I had in mind that lists modify messages. Some of them don't, that way
they don't need From: munging. It is quite common too.
Let me reword the question: Are there lists that modify messages and don't
munge From:?
Yes, although those are fewer.
That's interesting. Do they have different workarounds or ban p=reject?
Please describe something about them, or just share a pointer to their archive
if you prefer.
I think it's crucial, since we're weighting how to word the theoretical
prohibition to use DMARC, to know what's the actual reality. Many opponents to
MUST NOT argue about the usefulness of closing the stable door after the horses
have bolted out. So, knowing there are some horses still in makes a
difference, doesn't it? Presumably, they're never going to leave even if we
leave the doors open? And why?
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
