Re: [dmarc-discuss] Fwd: Re: Help

[John Levine via dmarc-discuss]

In article <869d643b-7594-4bad-8929-9afdea01d...@portadmiral.org> you write:
>Yes, there are folks who don’t know. I am an administrator for 17 mailing 
>lists using different technologies,
>and I belong to several more. Mailman is different from Yahoo Groups is 
>different from Google Groups is
>different from L-Soft’s listserv (where most of my lists are). And every one 
>has different subscribe and
>unsubscribe options.

The would be a good time to upgrade your mail program to one that
handles the List-Unsubscribe header that was defined in RFC 2369 in
1998 and that is present on every message sent to this list as well as
on messages from Yahoogroups and most othe list systems.  Then you're
one click away from unsubscribing for any mailing list.



> And every one of my lists has a link to unsubscribe in the footer. Just as 
> this list should
>and is required by law, at least in the US. This is the only list I have 
>encountered that does not follow this practice.

You appear to be misstating 15 USC 7704 (a)(3) which requires opt-out
contact info in commercial electronic mail messages.  Except that
"commercial electronic mail message" is defined in 15 USC 7702 (2),
and this list clearly isn't it, so the requirement doesn't apply.  (I
get to play junior lawyer because I've been an expert witness in CAN
SPAM criminal court cases.)

By the way, each message to this list does have a URL in the footer,
which does indeed lead to the mailman page where you can unsubscribe.
Try it.

R's,
John
___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help

[Lawrence Finch via dmarc-discuss]

> On Sep 26, 2018, at 5:40 PM, Jonathan Knopp via dmarc-discuss 
>  wrote:
> 
> To play devil's advocate: it doesn't explicitly provide unsubscribe 
> instructions directly in the email itself. A non-savvy user likely wouldn't 
> think to follow the non-obvious info link in the footer. And not all mail 
> clients make use of the list-unsubscribe header.
> 
> That said... why would any such person be on this list in the first place?
> 

Well, It’s clear that there is such a person, otherwise this wouldn’t have come 
up ;)

I had never thought about it until it was asked, then I went and looked for an 
easy answer, and found there wasn’t one. Despite what it sounds like, I’m not 
trying to be obstructionist. This is a very valuable list for me as site 
administrator for a number of lists. But I think a simple “unsubscribe” link 
would good addition.

Peace,
Larry



> On 2018-09-26 02:11 PM, Brandon Long via dmarc-discuss wrote:
>> Wait, folks are on this list who don't know the basics?
>> Ie:
>> List-Unsubscribe: , 
>> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
>> on every message?
>> Also, the link in the footer, 
>> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss, has a section that is 
>> the same on all mailman lists:
>> To unsubscribe from dmarc-discuss, get a password reminder, or change your 
>> subscription options enter your subscription email address:
>> So.. yeah.
>> Brandon
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:04 PM Lawrence Finch via dmarc-discuss 
>> mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>> wrote:
>>>On Sep 26, 2018, at 4:44 PM, Bongaerts Contract via dmarc-discuss 
>>> mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>Hello, Would someone please be kind enough to tell me how to Unsubscribe 
>>> from these emails ?
>>> 
>>>Thank you.
>>> 
>>>Carl BongaertsTel: 416-831-7841
>>> 
>>You raise a really good question. The list violates US federal 
>> regulations by not providing instructions in every message about how to 
>> unsubscribe. And I just went to the Info page for the list, and there were 
>> no instructions to unsubscribe there either.
>>--
>>Larry Finch
>>finc...@portadmiral.org 
>>___
>>dmarc-discuss mailing list
>>dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org 
>>http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
>>NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well 
>> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
>> ___
>> dmarc-discuss mailing list
>> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
>> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
>> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well 
>> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
> ___
> dmarc-discuss mailing list
> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
> 
> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
> (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)


___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Fwd: Re: Help

[Jonathan Knopp via dmarc-discuss]

To play devil's advocate: it doesn't explicitly provide unsubscribe 
instructions directly in the email itself. A non-savvy user likely wouldn't 
think to follow the non-obvious info link in the footer. And not all mail 
clients make use of the list-unsubscribe header.

That said... why would any such person be on this list in the first place?

On 2018-09-26 02:11 PM, Brandon Long via dmarc-discuss wrote:

Wait, folks are on this list who don't know the basics?

Ie:
List-Unsubscribe: , 
?subject=unsubscribe>

on every message?

Also, the link in the footer, 
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss, has a section that is the 
same on all mailman lists:
To unsubscribe from dmarc-discuss, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options enter your subscription email address:

So.. yeah.

Brandon

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:04 PM Lawrence Finch via dmarc-discuss 
mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>> wrote:




On Sep 26, 2018, at 4:44 PM, Bongaerts Contract via dmarc-discuss 
mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>> wrote:

Hello, Would someone please be kind enough to tell me how to Unsubscribe 
from these emails ?

Thank you.

Carl Bongaerts    Tel: 416-831-7841



You raise a really good question. The list violates US federal regulations 
by not providing instructions in every message about how to unsubscribe. And I 
just went to the Info page for the list, and there were no instructions to 
unsubscribe there either.

--
Larry Finch
finc...@portadmiral.org 



___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org 
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well 
terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)



___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)


___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Fwd: Re: Help

[Brandon Long via dmarc-discuss]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:22 PM Lawrence Finch via dmarc-discuss <
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 26, 2018, at 5:11 PM, Brandon Long  wrote:
>
> Wait, folks are on this list who don't know the basics?
>
> Ie:
> List-Unsubscribe: ,
> 
>
> on every message?
>
> Also, the link in the footer,
> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss, has a section that
> is the same on all mailman lists:
> To unsubscribe from dmarc-discuss, get a password reminder, or change your
> subscription options enter your subscription email address:
>
> So.. yeah.
>
> Brandon
>
>
> Yes, there are folks who don’t know. I am an administrator for 17 mailing
> lists using different technologies, and I belong to several more. Mailman
> is different from Yahoo Groups is different from Google Groups is different
> from L-Soft’s listserv (where most of my lists are). And every one has
> different subscribe and unsubscribe options. And every one of my lists has
> a link to unsubscribe in the footer. Just as this list should and is
> required by law, at least in the US. This is the only list I have
> encountered that does not follow this practice.
>

Citation needed.  CAN-SPAM refers to only commercial mail, which this list
is certainly not.  And the link in the footer does provide unsubscribe
instructions.

Brandon
___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Fwd: Re: Help

[Lawrence Finch via dmarc-discuss]

> On Sep 26, 2018, at 5:11 PM, Brandon Long  wrote:
> 
> Wait, folks are on this list who don't know the basics?
> 
> Ie:
> List-Unsubscribe:  >, 
>  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> 
> on every message?
> 
> Also, the link in the footer, 
> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss 
> , has a section that is 
> the same on all mailman lists:
> To unsubscribe from dmarc-discuss, get a password reminder, or change your 
> subscription options enter your subscription email address:
> 
> So.. yeah.
> 
> Brandon

Yes, there are folks who don’t know. I am an administrator for 17 mailing lists 
using different technologies, and I belong to several more. Mailman is 
different from Yahoo Groups is different from Google Groups is different from 
L-Soft’s listserv (where most of my lists are). And every one has different 
subscribe and unsubscribe options. And every one of my lists has a link to 
unsubscribe in the footer. Just as this list should and is required by law, at 
least in the US. This is the only list I have encountered that does not follow 
this practice.



--
Larry Finch
finc...@portadmiral.org



___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Fwd: Re: Help

[Brandon Long via dmarc-discuss]

Wait, folks are on this list who don't know the basics?

Ie:
List-Unsubscribe: , 

on every message?

Also, the link in the footer,
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss, has a section that is
the same on all mailman lists:
To unsubscribe from dmarc-discuss, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options enter your subscription email address:

So.. yeah.

Brandon

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:04 PM Lawrence Finch via dmarc-discuss <
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 26, 2018, at 4:44 PM, Bongaerts Contract via dmarc-discuss <
> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
>
> Hello, Would someone please be kind enough to tell me how to Unsubscribe
> from these emails ?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Carl BongaertsTel: 416-831-7841
>
>
> You raise a really good question. The list violates US federal regulations
> by not providing instructions in every message about how to unsubscribe.
> And I just went to the Info page for the list, and there were no
> instructions to unsubscribe there either.
>
> --
> Larry Finch
> finc...@portadmiral.org
>
>
>
> ___
> dmarc-discuss mailing list
> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
>
> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well
> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Fwd: Re: Help

[Lawrence Finch via dmarc-discuss]

> On Sep 26, 2018, at 4:44 PM, Bongaerts Contract via dmarc-discuss 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hello, Would someone please be kind enough to tell me how to Unsubscribe from 
> these emails ?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Carl BongaertsTel: 416-831-7841
> 

You raise a really good question. The list violates US federal regulations by 
not providing instructions in every message about how to unsubscribe. And I 
just went to the Info page for the list, and there were no instructions to 
unsubscribe there either. 

--
Larry Finch
finc...@portadmiral.org



___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

[dmarc-discuss] Fwd: Re: Help

[Bongaerts Contract via dmarc-discuss]

Hello, Would someone please be kind enough to tell me how to Unsubscribe 
from these emails ?


Thank you.

Carl Bongaerts    Tel: 416-831-7841

 Forwarded Message 
Subject:Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help
Date:   Wed, 26 Sep 2018 19:06:25 +
From:   T Nguyen via dmarc-discuss 
Reply-To:   T Nguyen 
To: Zachary Aab 
CC: dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org 



v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc-repo...@not-example.com

For the case above how does dmarc reports receiving domain ( 
not-example.com ) authorize example.com to send rua? The report 
generator constructs “ *example.com._report._dmarc.not-example.com* “ to 
check the authorization for a dns published record from not-example.com, 
would a “ syntax error “ generate then if no such published record found?


Thanks,

tn

*From:* Zachary Aab 
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 26, 2018 12:56 PM
*To:* t.nguye...@outlook.com
*Cc:* dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
*Subject:* Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help

No problem!

It's not strictly necessary, realistically most receivers will likely 
handle little things like that just fine.


>Is the semicolon needed for the rua clause t the end for dmarc statement?

I was just spitballing that if the syntax error you were talking about 
was from a "DMARC checker" like https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-inspector/ 
 
or similar, that might have been the cause (now that I poke the ones I 
know of with google.com 
, 
they all send back a thumbs up, however).



My best,

Zack Aab

Image removed by sender. 






*Zack Aab**| **Sr. Deliverability Strategist***Image removed by sender. 



*Inbox Pros 
 
*1995 N Park Place | Suite 300 | Atlanta


O: 678.214.3739 | C: 706-870-1061 | z...@inboxpros.com 



On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:01 PM T Nguyen > wrote:


   Thank you response Zachary, will check to see how syntax error was
   generated.

   Is the semicolon needed for the rua clause t the end for dmarc
   statement? I’ve checked a couple including google.com
   

   but did not see any semicolon on their dmarc record.

   *Error! Filename not specified.*

   Best,

   Tien

   **

   *Cc:* dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org 
   *Subject:* Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help

   The sub/domain should be protected by the DMARC record even without
   an MX record, I can't find anything in the RFC to say otherwise and
   some senders (mostly marketing, ime) use 5322.from domains with no
   MX records and a "Reply-to:" header with a working domain.

>Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have
   the txt record to authorize the reports reception?

   It certainly could, of course we can't check up on that without the
   domain.  The answer will probably depend on what is actually
   throwing the syntax error, is it a DMARC-checking tool on the
   internet, a receiver's DMARC filter, or your DNS provider?

   It looks like your last clause (rua=) is missing the semicolon at
   the end, receivers will care about that to varying degrees but it
   might be causing the error you see, again depending on what's giving
   the error.

   My best,

   Zack Aab

   On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM T Nguyen via dmarc-discuss
   mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>> wrote:

   Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not
   

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help

[Zachary Aab via dmarc-discuss]

I can't say without knowing what is actually saying "Syntax Error."  What
is giving you that message, where are you seeing it?  A website, a report,
a filter, a bounce?  Without knowing that, the answer is "maybe."

My best,
Zack Aab

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:06 PM T Nguyen  wrote:

> v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc-repo...@not-example.com
>
>
>
> For the case above how does dmarc reports receiving domain (
> not-example.com ) authorize example.com to send rua? The report generator
> constructs “ *example.com._report._dmarc.not-example.com
> * “ to check the authorization for a dns
> published record from not-example.com, would a “ syntax error “ generate
> then if no such published record found?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> tn
>
>
>
> *From:* Zachary Aab 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 26, 2018 12:56 PM
> *To:* t.nguye...@outlook.com
> *Cc:* dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> *Subject:* Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help
>
>
>
> No problem!
>
> It's not strictly necessary, realistically most receivers will likely
> handle little things like that just fine.
>
>
>
> >Is the semicolon needed for the rua clause t the end for dmarc statement?
>
> I was just spitballing that if the syntax error you were talking about was
> from a "DMARC checker" like https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-inspector/
> 
> or similar, that might have been the cause (now that I poke the ones I know
> of with google.com
> ,
> they all send back a thumbs up, however).
>
>
> My best,
>
> Zack Aab
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
> 
>
> *Zack Aab** | **Sr. Deliverability Strategist* [image: Image removed by
> sender.]
> 
>
> *Inbox Pros
> 
> *1995 N Park Place | Suite 300 | Atlanta
>
> O: 678.214.3739 | C: 706-870-1061 | z...@inboxpros.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:01 PM T Nguyen  wrote:
>
> Thank you response Zachary, will check to see how syntax error was
> generated.
>
>
>
> Is the semicolon needed for the rua clause t the end for dmarc statement?
> I’ve checked a couple including google.com
> 
> but did not see any semicolon on their dmarc record.
>
>
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Tien
>
>
>
> *Cc:* dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> *Subject:* Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help
>
>
>
> The sub/domain should be protected by the DMARC record even without an MX
> record, I can't find anything in the RFC to say otherwise and some senders
> (mostly marketing, ime) use 5322.from domains with no MX records and a
> "Reply-to:" header with a working domain.
>
>
>
> >Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have the
> txt record to authorize the reports reception?
>
> It certainly could, of course we can't check up on that without the
> domain.  The answer will probably depend on what is actually throwing the
> syntax error, is it a DMARC-checking tool on the internet, a receiver's
> DMARC filter, or your DNS provider?
>
>
>
> It looks like your last clause (rua=) is missing the semicolon at the end,
> receivers will care about that to varying degrees but it might be causing
> the error you see, again depending on what's giving the error.
>
>
>
> My best,
>
> Zack Aab
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM T Nguyen via dmarc-discuss <
> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
>
> Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have the txt
> record to authorize the reports reception?
>
>
>
>

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help

[Zachary Aab via dmarc-discuss]

No problem!
It's not strictly necessary, realistically most receivers will likely
handle little things like that just fine.

>Is the semicolon needed for the rua clause t the end for dmarc statement?
I was just spitballing that if the syntax error you were talking about was
from a "DMARC checker" like https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-inspector/ or
similar, that might have been the cause (now that I poke the ones I know of
with google.com, they all send back a thumbs up, however).

My best,
Zack Aab

*Zack Aab | Sr. Deliverability Strategist*

*Inbox Pros  *1995 N Park Place | Suite 300 | Atlanta
O: 678.214.3739 | C: 706-870-1061 | z...@inboxpros.com


On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:01 PM T Nguyen  wrote:

> Thank you response Zachary, will check to see how syntax error was
> generated.
>
>
>
> Is the semicolon needed for the rua clause t the end for dmarc statement?
> I’ve checked a couple including google.com but did not see any semicolon
> on their dmarc record.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Tien
>
>
>
> *Cc:* dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> *Subject:* Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help
>
>
>
> The sub/domain should be protected by the DMARC record even without an MX
> record, I can't find anything in the RFC to say otherwise and some senders
> (mostly marketing, ime) use 5322.from domains with no MX records and a
> "Reply-to:" header with a working domain.
>
>
>
> >Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have the
> txt record to authorize the reports reception?
>
> It certainly could, of course we can't check up on that without the
> domain.  The answer will probably depend on what is actually throwing the
> syntax error, is it a DMARC-checking tool on the internet, a receiver's
> DMARC filter, or your DNS provider?
>
>
>
> It looks like your last clause (rua=) is missing the semicolon at the end,
> receivers will care about that to varying degrees but it might be causing
> the error you see, again depending on what's giving the error.
>
>
>
> My best,
>
> Zack Aab
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM T Nguyen via dmarc-discuss <
> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
>
> Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have the txt
> record to authorize the reports reception?
>
>
>
> *From:* T Nguyen 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9:30 PM
> *To:* dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> *Subject:* Help
>
>
>
> Appreciate any insight to the scenario below:
>
>
>
>1. Can non-smtp ( no mx record ) domain example.com
>
> 
>be protected by dmarc?  I inherited the below dmarc record for this
>example.com
>
> 
>with  spf record as “ v=spf1 -all “.  The result was a dmarc syntax error.
>
>
>
> v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc-repo...@not-example.com
> ,mailto:repo...@example-not.com
>
>
>
>1. If dmarc cannot be implemented then what is the best way to protect
>this non-smtp domain example.com
>
> 
>from being spoofed by mal-intention senders that can fool naïve users?
>Although with spf record “ v=spf1 -all “alone should work for dmarc record
>to set policy reject all email using this non-email domain example.com
>
> 
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance,
>
> Best,
>
> tn
>
> ___
> dmarc-discuss mailing list
> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
> 
>
> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well
> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html
> 

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help

[John Levine via dmarc-discuss]

In article  
you write:
>Might be better to have an MX record that points to localhost, because
>if you have an A record but no MX, people will just try to connect to
>the A record.

There's an RFC for that:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7505

R's,
John
-- 
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help

[Brandon Long via dmarc-discuss]

Use a null mx instead.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7505

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 8:43 AM Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss <
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:

> Might be better to have an MX record that points to localhost, because
> if you have an A record but no MX, people will just try to connect to
> the A record.
>
> Though I've never tried it for domains that lack an MX DNS entry, I do
> think overall that DMARC (and SPF) are both good things to configure
> for domains that don't send email. I've blogged about it here:
> https://www.spamresource.com/2018/06/locking-down-your-unused-domains.html
>
> Cheers,
> Al
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:52 AM Zachary Aab via dmarc-discuss
>  wrote:
> >
> > The sub/domain should be protected by the DMARC record even without an
> MX record, I can't find anything in the RFC to say otherwise and some
> senders (mostly marketing, ime) use 5322.from domains with no MX records
> and a "Reply-to:" header with a working domain.
> >
> > >Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have the
> txt record to authorize the reports reception?
> > It certainly could, of course we can't check up on that without the
> domain.  The answer will probably depend on what is actually throwing the
> syntax error, is it a DMARC-checking tool on the internet, a receiver's
> DMARC filter, or your DNS provider?
> >
> > It looks like your last clause (rua=) is missing the semicolon at the
> end, receivers will care about that to varying degrees but it might be
> causing the error you see, again depending on what's giving the error.
> >
> > My best,
> > Zack Aab
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM T Nguyen via dmarc-discuss <
> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have the
> txt record to authorize the reports reception?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: T Nguyen 
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9:30 PM
> >> To: dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> >> Subject: Help
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Appreciate any insight to the scenario below:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Can non-smtp ( no mx record ) domain example.com be protected by
> dmarc?  I inherited the below dmarc record for this example.com with  spf
> record as “ v=spf1 -all “.  The result was a dmarc syntax error.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc-repo...@not-example.com
> ,mailto:repo...@example-not.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If dmarc cannot be implemented then what is the best way to protect
> this non-smtp domain example.com from being spoofed by mal-intention
> senders that can fool naïve users?  Although with spf record “ v=spf1 -all
> “alone should work for dmarc record to set policy reject all email using
> this non-email domain example.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you in advance,
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> tn
> >>
> >> ___
> >> dmarc-discuss mailing list
> >> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> >> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
> >>
> >> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well
> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
> >
> > ___
> > dmarc-discuss mailing list
> > dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
> >
> > NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well
> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
>
>
>
> --
> al iverson // 312-725-0130 // miami
> http://www.aliverson.com
> http://www.spamresource.com
>
> ___
> dmarc-discuss mailing list
> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
>
> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well
> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help

[Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss]

Might be better to have an MX record that points to localhost, because
if you have an A record but no MX, people will just try to connect to
the A record.

Though I've never tried it for domains that lack an MX DNS entry, I do
think overall that DMARC (and SPF) are both good things to configure
for domains that don't send email. I've blogged about it here:
https://www.spamresource.com/2018/06/locking-down-your-unused-domains.html

Cheers,
Al
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:52 AM Zachary Aab via dmarc-discuss
 wrote:
>
> The sub/domain should be protected by the DMARC record even without an MX 
> record, I can't find anything in the RFC to say otherwise and some senders 
> (mostly marketing, ime) use 5322.from domains with no MX records and a 
> "Reply-to:" header with a working domain.
>
> >Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have the txt 
> >record to authorize the reports reception?
> It certainly could, of course we can't check up on that without the domain.  
> The answer will probably depend on what is actually throwing the syntax 
> error, is it a DMARC-checking tool on the internet, a receiver's DMARC 
> filter, or your DNS provider?
>
> It looks like your last clause (rua=) is missing the semicolon at the end, 
> receivers will care about that to varying degrees but it might be causing the 
> error you see, again depending on what's giving the error.
>
> My best,
> Zack Aab
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM T Nguyen via dmarc-discuss 
>  wrote:
>>
>> Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have the txt 
>> record to authorize the reports reception?
>>
>>
>>
>> From: T Nguyen 
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9:30 PM
>> To: dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
>> Subject: Help
>>
>>
>>
>> Appreciate any insight to the scenario below:
>>
>>
>>
>> Can non-smtp ( no mx record ) domain example.com be protected by dmarc?  I 
>> inherited the below dmarc record for this example.com with  spf record as “ 
>> v=spf1 -all “.  The result was a dmarc syntax error.
>>
>>
>>
>> v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; 
>> rua=mailto:dmarc-repo...@not-example.com,mailto:repo...@example-not.com
>>
>>
>>
>> If dmarc cannot be implemented then what is the best way to protect this 
>> non-smtp domain example.com from being spoofed by mal-intention senders that 
>> can fool naïve users?  Although with spf record “ v=spf1 -all “alone should 
>> work for dmarc record to set policy reject all email using this non-email 
>> domain example.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you in advance,
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> tn
>>
>> ___
>> dmarc-discuss mailing list
>> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
>> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
>>
>> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well 
>> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
>
> ___
> dmarc-discuss mailing list
> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
>
> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
> (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)



-- 
al iverson // 312-725-0130 // miami
http://www.aliverson.com
http://www.spamresource.com

___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] Help

[Zachary Aab via dmarc-discuss]

The sub/domain should be protected by the DMARC record even without an MX
record, I can't find anything in the RFC to say otherwise and some senders
(mostly marketing, ime) use 5322.from domains with no MX records and a
"Reply-to:" header with a working domain.

>Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have the txt
record to authorize the reports reception?
It certainly could, of course we can't check up on that without the
domain.  The answer will probably depend on what is actually throwing the
syntax error, is it a DMARC-checking tool on the internet, a receiver's
DMARC filter, or your DNS provider?

It looks like your last clause (rua=) is missing the semicolon at the end,
receivers will care about that to varying degrees but it might be causing
the error you see, again depending on what's giving the error.

My best,
Zack Aab


On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM T Nguyen via dmarc-discuss <
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:

> Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have the txt
> record to authorize the reports reception?
>
>
>
> *From:* T Nguyen 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9:30 PM
> *To:* dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> *Subject:* Help
>
>
>
> Appreciate any insight to the scenario below:
>
>
>
>1. Can non-smtp ( no mx record ) domain example.com be protected by
>dmarc?  I inherited the below dmarc record for this example.com with
> spf record as “ v=spf1 -all “.  The result was a dmarc syntax error.
>
>
>
> v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc-repo...@not-example.com
> ,mailto:repo...@example-not.com
>
>
>
>1. If dmarc cannot be implemented then what is the best way to protect
>this non-smtp domain example.com from being spoofed by mal-intention
>senders that can fool naïve users?  Although with spf record “ v=spf1 -all
>“alone should work for dmarc record to set policy reject all email using
>this non-email domain example.com
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance,
>
> Best,
>
> tn
> ___
> dmarc-discuss mailing list
> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
>
> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well
> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)