[dmarc-discuss] DMARC limitations

[Franck Martin]

Domains that are phished, will go in reject mode, and that will save the receiver to have their infrastructure infected… so is more or less the plan in an ideal world.

From: Adrian <adrian at hardy.bz<mailto:adrian at hardy.bz>>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:47:20 +0000
To: Mitchell Webb <dmarcmarcd at yahoo.com<mailto:dmarcmarcd at yahoo.com>>
Cc: "dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org<mailto:dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org>" <dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org<mailto:dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org>>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC limitations

Where is the incentive for receivers to implement DMARC if it is just to provide feedback to senders?

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Mitchell Webb <dmarcmarcd at yahoo.com<mailto:dmarcmarcd at yahoo.com>> wrote:

Do the following DMARC parameters "overstep" the bounds that should be allowed of a sending domain?

pct Sampling rate
p Requested handling policy
sp Requested handling policy for subdomains

As they are requests would it not be better for the policy configuration responsibility to rest solely on the receiving mail server?  This would essentially relegate DMARC to a reporting system only.

_______________________________________________
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org<mailto:dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org>
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)


_______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org<mailto:dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://medusa.blackops.org/pipermail/dmarc-discuss/attachments/20120306/3d634ace/attachment.htm>