It appears that Michael Thomas via NANOG <m...@mtcc.com> said: > >On 8/2/22 12:30 PM, Jim Popovitch via NANOG wrote: >> It's been doing it for ages for p=reject, but not p=none (the latter >> being Jared's situation)
I don't understand Jared's concern. His DMARC policy, like mine, is p=none which tells receivers to do nothing DMARC-y with our messages. I don't get any sort of blowback from nanog posts that I can recall seeing. >I'm sort of surprised that an org would have p=reject when its users use >outside mailing lists. Unfortunately, we lost that battle a long time ago. It's "more secure" and "best practice" so go away. R's, John
