Dnia 26.04.2020 o godz. 08:00:56 Richard Damon pisze: > > This is exactly what DMARC is intended to indicate. Configuring a domain > with DMARC says that it is intended that message only be accepted if > they come directly from the sender. It was designed for things like > Banks to be able to send out messages that the recipients can trust came > from them and not a scammer.
But email providers like Google are ignoring the fact that DMARC was intended for such purposes, and consider it an universal anti-spam measure. Google, as a recipient, clearly indicates in their sender guidelines (targeted at senders who have trouble with deliverability of their messages to Gmail users - among other cases, messages being placed in Spam folder) that the sender has to have DMARC, DKIM and SPF configured. That's the first thing they require from you if you have any deliverability problems with them. However, having all this set up doesn't provide any guarantee that your email won't be qualified as spam (so why require it at all?). BTW, with regard to messages being marked spam, DMARC reports are pretty useless because they don't give you any information about that. And that would be actually the most interesting thing in those reports. They only give me information whether the message passed or failed DMARC/DKIM/SPF check, but this tells me nothing in terms of knowing if the recipient actually got my message or not. What's worse, Gmail does not honor Disposition-Notification-To: header, which could be used to determine if the recipienta ctually read my message or not. So sending mail to someone at Gmail is actually sending it into the unknown... -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
