Hi John,
I have one bigger example back from the days when I was working for an ESP. The
Situation was that a financial Institution decided to sign all their messages
with DKIM and deploy a DMARC reject policy and an active decision against a
strict SPF record. Because a huge part of their Emai
I have one bigger example back from the days when I was working for an
ESP. The Situation was that a financial Institution decided to sign all
their messages with DKIM and deploy a DMARC reject policy and an active
decision against a strict SPF record. Because a huge part of their
Emails where
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 11:33 AM John R Levine wrote:
> > I have one bigger example back from the days when I was working for an
> > ESP. The Situation was that a financial Institution decided to sign all
> > their messages with DKIM and deploy a DMARC reject policy and an active
> > decision agai
On 1/5/2022 5:59 AM, Tobias Herkula wrote:
I have one bigger example back from the days when I was working for an ESP.
You've described a company making a set of operational decisions that
are known to create problems when using DMARC.
They also choose an ESP that imposes an operational requ
Like everyone else, receivers will do what they perceive as their own self
interest. The goal of a document like this is to a lay out a plan where
everyone can pursue their own self interest in a way that benefits the
group. In this case, the "group" is senders of wanted mail and the
receivers w
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 4:53 PM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> The PASS-centric approach is the only one that makes sense to me. This is
> why I have lobbied for changes to the introduction to explicitly state that
> FAIL is an ambiguous result. If you acc
