Re: [dmarc-discuss] FBL via DMARC?
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:06 AM, John Levine via dmarc-discuss < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > In article <864f7119-9912-7143-7cc4-b2c10ca1f...@delegated.net> you write: > >Has there been any discussion about using DMARC to configure spam > complaint feedback loops? > > No, for reasons already mentioned. > > But see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-herkula-oneclick/ > > Ooh, interesting. I hadn't seen that; thanks for the pointer. > This is likely to be an RFC soon, and is apparently already > implemented at some large webmail providers. You can put a new header > in your message which encourages recipient systems to do a one-click > non-interactive unsubscribe when someone reports the message as junk. > > (Apologies for the non dmarc-discuss topic) We currently treat FBL reports as unsubscribe requests. We do the unsubscribe and send an email saying 'hey, if you made a mistake, here's a link to re-subscribe'. What we've found, unfortunately, is that the rate of accidental spam button clicking is higher than we expected. For example, with at least one webmail service, the Spam button is right next to the Delete button. People are peeved when we unsub them; it's not a good user experience and we're looking at different algorithms to guard against the occasional accidental spam button press. Which somewhat lessens the efficacy of the whole enterprise. What would be great is if this RFC could have some language discussing having a confirmation dialog to prevent these accidental mistakes from happening. Thanks, Mark ___ 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] Netscape.net?
Hi All, One of our mailing list members, with a netscape.net email address, is getting DMARC bounces. That domain is set to p=none. Because of this we don't re-write her From lines. The netscape.net MX points to AOL, which we know does reject. And we're seeing AOL DMARC bounces for her messages. It seems to me that we need to treat netscape.net addresses as p=reject, as they seem to have misconfigured their DMARC record. Or am I misunderstanding what's happening (completely possible)? Thanks, Mark ___ 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] "p=none" vs. "p=quarantine; pct=0"
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:06 AM Jonathan Kamens via dmarc-discuss < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > I see people behaving badly here in both directions. In my opinion, > servers that do message forwarding should rewrite headers for DMARC > compliance whenever there is a DMARC policy, not just when the policy is > *p=quarantine* or *p=reject*. And on the other end, given that the > servers that do forwarding *aren't* behaving that way, nobody should be > using *p=none* in their policy; they should instead use *p=quarantine; > pct=0* to force their headers to be rewritten during forwarding. > We only re-write From lines for quarantine or reject, not none. We want to re-write as few From lines as possible; the user experience is degraded when we have to re-write From lines. Mark ___ 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)