It is a problem when receiving servers use DMARC existence and
pass/fail to increase/decrease deliverability rates. - And when
Yahoo/AOL pretty much block everything you send - even with a 98
sender score, SPF, DKIM, and clean opt-in lists.
Are they rejecting on DMARC failure because you're publishing p=reject?
NO p=none
I know people at Yahoo, and their filtering is largely based on complaint
statistics. If they're blocking your mail, the recipients are marking a
lot of it as junk. What do you see in the feedback reports?
I DO think this is an unnecessary problem that CAN be fixed/improved in
one of two fairly straightforward manners through DNS (behavior switch
or list authorized alternate domains). And I can't see anything but
upside in doing so; nobody has demonstrated a downside anyways.
I explained the downside to Sender a few messages back: it lets people put
any address they want in the From line so it becomes just a filter on the
reputation of the DKIM or SPF domain. If that were adequate, they
wouldn't have invented DMARC.
I agree that there is no particular downside to something like ATPS, but
the fact that we've had ATPS for a decade and nobody has implemented it
tells me that this is not a problem that the industry thinks is worth
solving.
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
