> On Mar 22, 2016, at 9:35 PM, <frnk...@iname.com> <frnk...@iname.com> wrote: > > Are you taking that approach because the workaround is less than ideal? > Otherwise the current “workaround” could be the new standard.
The workaround is terrible and breaks basic email functionality. It's likely that ARC will become the new - much better - workaround eventually, modulo the inevitable deployment issues. http://arc-spec.org Cheers, Steve > > Frank > > From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of Vick Khera > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 8:54 PM > To: mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > Subject: Re: [mailop] Yahoo DMARC changes > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: >> So if you've been doing anything special with forwarders or mailing lists >> for yahoo.com >> >> it's probably a good idea to do it for their other domains too in the next >> few days. > > When Y! first set up p=reject on their main domain, we built our system's > evasive maneuvers to work around it to be domain independent. Our systems do > a DNS lookup for the DMARC record and if they find p=reject or p=quarantine > and we do not sign using their From address in the domain, we automatically > enable the workarounds to avoid falling in the trap. No manual configuration > necessary. > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
