I am not claiming any particular knowledge of the universe of all
implementations. All I know is that if my user's want a mailing list
exempted from DMARC enforcement, all they have to do is ask, and that is
the way it should be most everywhere. If the mailing list problem was
unique to AOL
On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 2:47 PM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have established that the normative implementation of DMARC is
> (unfortunately) a fully-automated solution which implements RFC 7489
> exactly and nothing more.
>
Sure, but why would you do that,
We have established that the normative implementation of DMARC is
(unfortunately) a fully-automated solution which implements RFC 7489
exactly and nothing more. These implementations block unconditionally on
Fail with Reject, and have minimal effect on disposition otherwise. With
any level of
On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 11:04 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You misunderstsnd my position. I don't expect a world where perfect
> information is dropped in my lap without any effort on my part. Not now,
> not ever.
>
> I have determined, by measurement, that
You misunderstsnd my position. I don't expect a world where perfect
information is dropped in my lap without any effort on my part. Not now,
not ever.
I have determined, by measurement, that unauthenticated mail is a much
smaller percentage of all mail than one might expect. This makes
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>Thanks. That's helpful.
>
>I interpret that as confirming my view that there is not currently a
>reasonable
>technical solution available. While these may be promising for the future,
>it's not like any of those solutions are things that are currently
Count| Bytes | Who
++---
31 ( 100%) | 306769 ( 100%) | Total
6 (19.4%) | 87916 (28.7%) | Douglas Foster
5 (16.1%) | 70425 (23.0%) | Dotzero
4 (12.9%) | 41026 (13.4%) | Hector Santos
3 ( 9.7%) | 18069 ( 5.9%) | Alessandro Vesely
2
