Hi Florian, I'm not sure if I got it right. T-Online renders the use of DMARC useless? By inventing its own version of it, and *forcing* me to sign my messages? (I'm doing so, and I'm using DMARC, but I do it voluntarily, and I expect the recipient honouring my p=reject policy.)
I do not understand the benefit on your side. Spammers are able to sign
their messages correctly, so you won't block lots of spammers.
If you are afraid that spammers can impersonate as me, you could use my
published DMARC record and honour my DMARC policy. That's how I
understood DMARC.
Of course, you can do whatever you want on the receiving side, but as
T-Online is still kind of a major ESP, I think, you should act
responsible, by *supporting* existing standards, not by inventing new
ones and forcing smaller ESPs to follow *your* imagination of email
delivery.
Somehow it reminds me of "Email Made in Germany" as an attempt to
create a German version of DANE. Now the same, but with DMARC? Does
T-Online suffer the NIH syndrome?
Still I hope that I somehow got it wrong and all that is a terrible
misinterpretation on my side.
Best regards from Dresden/Germany
Viele Grüße aus Dresden
Heiko Schlittermann
--
SCHLITTERMANN.de ---------------------------- internet & unix support -
Heiko Schlittermann, Dipl.-Ing. (TU) - {fon,fax}: +49.351.802998{1,3} -
gnupg encrypted messages are welcome --------------- key ID: F69376CE -
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
