Re: [dmarc-ietf] Missing participation from big tech members

This has nothing to do with MUST mandates. We are trying to write a document that people will choose to implement. Todd, in particular, has written several times about the principle that feedback reporting is critical to the success of DMARC. It is therefore appropriate to ask why a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Missing participation from big tech members

> On 21 Nov 2022, at 01:13, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 11:33 AM Douglas Foster > > wrote: > That is helpful, thank you. It says to me that their non-participation does > not have any direct implications for what we

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Missing participation from big tech members

I was not trying to be harsh. I actually have no problem with the profit motive, and was only trying to acknowledge the answer to my question. However, you raise points that have also been on my mind. To the extent that non-participation is caused by cost or data leakage, our documents can do

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Missing participation from big tech members

On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 11:33 AM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > That is helpful, thank you. It says to me that their non-participation > does not have any direct implications for what we are trying to do. > > Specifically, it is not that DMARC has too many false

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Missing participation from big tech members

That is helpful, thank you. It says to me that their non-participation does not have any direct implications for what we are trying to do. Specifically, it is not that DMARC has too many false positives, or that the processing effort is unacceptable. It is simply a reflection of their

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Missing participation from big tech members

It basically comes down to data gatekeeping for product monetization. Mimecast doesn't send RUA/RUF reports externally, because they bought DMARC Analyzer. Similarly, Proofpoint does not send reports from Proofpoint Essentials (ppe-hosted.com) or hosted PPS clusters (pphosted.com) because of

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Missing participation from big tech members

Thanks, but my real question was, "why are any major players not fully participating?" If they are unimpressed with DMARC filtering, does our work make it more attractive? If they are only opting out of reporting, can we do something to make the reporting piece more palatable? Doug On Sun, Nov

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Missing participation from big tech members

On 11/19/22 19:13, Douglas Foster wrote: > I note that I have no feedback reports from: The best view of who participates in DMARC feedback reporting probably lies with the report processors. Some of them will tell you who they are getting reports from:    

[dmarc-ietf] Missing participation from big tech members

I note that I have no feedback reports from: Mimecast.com pphosted.com and ppe-hosted.com (ProofPoint) BarracudaNetworks.com Outlook.com ICloud.com Can anyone comment on why? Is it just that my particular correspondent domains have not embraced DMARC? Or is there a general problem that these