> On Aug 2, 2022, at 4:31 PM, John Levine via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
Much like inline replies v top-posting and etc..
I did manage to get someone to flip the setting so hopefully I’m not getting a
lot of bounce back from this e-mail.
Thanks to the kind soul who flipped the setting.
- jared
