On October 9, 2018 10:37:49 PM UTC, John Levine via dmarc-discuss
wrote:
>In article <24dd5bc1-ca89-473c-9d11-cb712504c...@akamai.com> you write:
>>p=none -> “we’re trying to figure out if we’re going to be able to go
>to p=quarantine”
>>
>>If you treat quarantine differently than none, you’re
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, Al Iverson wrote:
If you treat quarantine differently than none, you’re sending me misleading
data in the reports you send (if of course
Sorry, but that is just wrong. I publish p=none because that is my
policy.
It's not wrong from my perspective. It's exactly what I
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:00 PM John Levine via dmarc-discuss
wrote:
>
> In article <24dd5bc1-ca89-473c-9d11-cb712504c...@akamai.com> you write:
> >p=none -> “we’re trying to figure out if we’re going to be able to go to
> >p=quarantine”
> >
> >If you treat quarantine differently than none,
Jonathan,
> It can also be fairly argued that the maintainers of servers that host
> mailing lists should get off their asses and fix their software to
> rewrite headers for domains that have DMARC policies, ...
Your implications of laziness are misplaced. We were talking about lists
which
In article <29bfd7c6-00bd-0950-fee8-780746f32...@quantopian.com> you write:
>It can also be fairly argued that the maintainers of servers that host
>mailing lists should get off their asses and fix their software to
>rewrite headers for domains that have DMARC policies, and that they have
>no
In article <24dd5bc1-ca89-473c-9d11-cb712504c...@akamai.com> you write:
>p=none -> “we’re trying to figure out if we’re going to be able to go to
>p=quarantine”
>
>If you treat quarantine differently than none, you’re sending me misleading
>data in the reports you send (if of course
>you send
On 10/9/18 2:14 PM, Shal F via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> I find this bewildering and frustrating both for domains attempting to
> roll out DMARC ...
If you have users who participate in mailing lists, that is, if you're
a mailbox provider, I think it can be fairly argued that you should
not even
> On Oct 9, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Mark Fletcher via dmarc-discuss
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:06 AM Jonathan Kamens via dmarc-discuss
> wrote:
> I see people behaving badly here in both directions. In my opinion, servers
> that do message forwarding should rewrite headers for DMARC
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
I agree that special casing "p=" (versus not special casing
"p=none") is something people should do, and in my personal little
mailing list manager, I've updated it to do that, and in my day job's
email forwarding functionality, we're adding it there as well. I think
that a lot of us assumed
Jonathan,
> In particular, the ones that I know about are Google Groups and GNU
> Mailman, both of which have decided to rewrite From: lines when they
> see *p=quarantine* or *p=reject* but leave them intact when they see
> no DMARC policy or a policy with *p=none*.
You can add Groups.io to
> On Oct 9, 2018, at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Kamens via dmarc-discuss
> wrote:
>
> As I'm sure the folks on this list are aware, apparently some ESPs and
> software maintainers have chosen to behave differently when forwarding emails
> (most notably to mailing lists) depending on whether the
This problem is also avoided by using a third-party processor for your
aggregate and forensic reports, so they aren't coming into your domain,
right?
On 10/9/18 7:42 AM, Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss wrote:
On 09/10/18 12:00, Paul Smith via dmarc-discuss wrote:
[...]
Several days ago, we
As I'm sure the folks on this list are aware, apparently some ESPs and
software maintainers have chosen to behave differently when forwarding
emails (most notably to mailing lists) depending on whether the sender's
domain DMARC policy is nonexistent or *p=none*, vs. *p=quarantine* or
On 09/10/18 12:00, Paul Smith via dmarc-discuss wrote:
[...]
> Several days ago, we received a marketing email from 'johnlewis.co.uk'.
> Our server dutifully sent a DMARC aggregate report back to them as their
> 'rua' record says.
>
> Then, the next day, we get an aggregate report back from
We've just implemented DMARC checking on the mail server software we
publish and have noticed something that I'm not sure is meant to happen...
Several days ago, we received a marketing email from 'johnlewis.co.uk'.
Our server dutifully sent a DMARC aggregate report back to them as their
16 matches
Mail list logo
