On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com
wrote:
There are those among you that disagree, I know. Does anyone have actual
data (not theory, not passion, but data) that any of the policy or
third-party solutions we've discussed before can work, work just about
Michael Jack Assels writes:
I can't think of any. Some, many, or most of them were supposed
to be, but it has never turned out that way. I don't know why
DMARC is being held to a different standard.
Isn't DMARC holding itself to a different standard?
That's a reasonable
Murray S. Kucherawy writes:
Does anyone have actual data (not theory, not passion, but data)
that any of the policy or third-party solutions we've discussed
before can work, work just about everywhere, and work at scale?
Speaking only for myself, at this stage I would accept *theory* that
Franck Martin writes:
Hard Bounce: no such mailbox/user/email address here (SMTP
enhanced status code, like 5.1.1), usually a permanent failure
Soft Bounce: there may be a valid mailbox/user/email address here,
but we are not accepting this email (SMTP enhanced status code
like 5.7.1),
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:22:04 +0900,
Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Michael Jack Assels writes:
What's a receiver supposed to do with unaligned mail whose From:
domain specifies p=reject?
Whatever they want to. If they think they can do filtering better
than the
On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 04:07:51 +0900,
Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Michael Jack Assels writes:
As I read it, that means AOL and Yahoo are taking the position that
DMARC's p=reject is The Right Thing To Do, while accepting that it's
going to give wrong answers for
