[dmarc-discuss] DMARC limitations

[Damon Sauer]

>This leads back to the nub of the matter, which is that receivers for
>the most part have no reason to care what senders want.

I believe the senders system is aware such declarations are not a 'want'. 
Instead, it allows the sender to state - "Partake in low hanging fruit" 
because I am giving you, optionally and for free, insider information 
about this domain.

Regards,
Damon Sauer
Email Services Manager @ IBM




From:   "John Levine" <johnl at taugh.com>
To:     dmarc-discuss at dmarc.org
Cc:     Damon Sauer/Atlanta/IBM at IBMUS
Date:   03/06/2012 02:59 PM
Subject:        Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC limitations



>Many of us want sender policies, ones with real teeth, but by the end of 
>the process, the teeth get removed and we release to the world yet 
another 
>'almost there' policy.

This leads back to the nub of the matter, which is that receivers for
the most part have no reason to care what senders want. 

DMARC suffers from the same issue as any other policy self-publication
such as SPF and ADSP, that there's no way to tell whether the policy
publish by some random domain actually reflects what they do, and whether
your users will be happy or sad if you believe it.

I believe that you and Yahoo and Facebook understand your policies.  But
for some random blurble.com, who can tell?

R's,
John


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://medusa.blackops.org/pipermail/dmarc-discuss/attachments/20120306/42047adf/attachment.htm>