I am a new subscriber to this list, and noticed the most recent post (the one before mine) discussed DMARC, something I haven't heard of before.
At first glimpse, it looks like it may solve the problem I wanted to solve. On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Chris Lamont Mankowski < makerofthing...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm reading the archives on ADSP and haven't seen anyone pitch the idea > that on verification failure, we could have the message in question would > be BCC'd to the domain owner's administrator for review. > > That way there is no need to rely on 3rd party ADSP reliability lists, and > in the event the domain owner doesn't understand the implications of a ADSP > record, they will quickly be informed of the matter (perhaps with a full > inbox). > > If this is a new, and welcome idea, there are many things to discuss such > as the audit message format (does it look like an NDR addressed to some > email address), can the ADSP audit email address point to a separate > domain, and if it is desirable to prevent older verifiers (that are unable > to BCC an audit message) from reading the new, vetted, ADSP policy. > > And while we're at it.. why not add this ability to SPF/SenderID as well? >
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
