On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 10:06 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 7:30 AM Todd Herr <todd= > 40someguyinva....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> I posit that a world with unsigned messages being rejected is indeed >> possible. Major mailbox providers have been saber rattling about "No auth, >> no entry" for quite some time, and the current Yahoo/Google requirements >> that at least some senders publish a DMARC record (among other things) in >> order to get mail considered for acceptance are a step in that direction. >> > > I agree that such a world is possible -- I mean, anything is possible -- > but I would really like such a change to come from below rather than above. > Meaning that it should be a mailbox provider policy-driven thing, as opposed to being directive embedded in the DKIM2 spec? If so, I think I agree. I honestly do want "no auth, no entry" but I approach it through deliverability eyes of "my server, my rules" for inbound mail processing. I want to enable choice, not demand the only path. Cheers, Al -- Al Iverson // 312-725-0130 // Chicago http://www.spamresource.com // Deliverability http://www.aliverson.com // All about me https://xnnd.com/calendar // Book my calendar
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
