On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > I don't think that's going to be anything but unwelcome noise. What > > would they do if they became aware of the issue? They could switch > > providers, but that only works for so long. As soon as Gmail switches > > to p=reject, we've lost. We got away with doing it for Yahoo because > > there's not a lot of people using that -- not on these lists anyway. > > On further thought I think Gmail going p=reject is the wrong thing to > worry about. The thing we need to check is how major mail providers > like Gmail and Yahoo handle SPF failures *today*. There are plenty of > domains we probably don't want to miss emails from that *already* have > p=reject. For example if a Google employee mails us from @google.com > [*] today that domain has p=reject so will everyone reading the list > on Gmail or Yahoo miss the email? I bet other major companies have > p=reject on their corporate domains as well. >
Google doesn't actually reject, but it increases the likelyhood of it hitting spam significantly. However, they put a fairly low value on the SPF records. In my experience, it seems they put a much higher value on DKIM (failed or not). Of course, Google also only actually *supports* email if both sender and receiver is on gmail. Anything else is "we hope it works". (Yes, I have official responses from google paid support saying they only support scenarios where both sender and receiver is on gmail) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
