On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Laura Atkins <la...@wordtothewise.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 2018, at 1:30 PM, Stefano Bagnara <mai...@bago.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 20:16, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: > > On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Stefano Bagnara <mai...@bago.org> wrote: > [...] > Otherwise we keep weakening DMARC to a point where it is not useful > anymore. > > > For many senders it's not useful; it's actively harmful. They're deploying > it because they've been ordered to, or because they've received bad advice, > or because they're copying others who've made poor decisions. > > > The "v=spf1 +all" SPF record is another, even easier, way to work around > it. > > > Spammers poisoned that particular well a while ago. +all listings are > treated as heavily suspicious by ISPs. > Deeply suspicious or egregiously stupid. Overly broad SPF ranges are definitely an indicator of badness of some sort - even /16 is considered outrageous.../0 would be more so. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
