On 4/9/2018 8:50 PM, Philip Paeps wrote:
On 2018-04-09 11:09:37 (-0500), Jesse Thompson wrote:
The amount of DMARC data for a large decentralized university is
daunting, so my approach is to compartmentalize issues that can be
addressed.
Thank you for collecting and analysing this data!
Ev
On 2018-04-09 11:09:37 (-0500), Jesse Thompson wrote:
The amount of DMARC data for a large decentralized university is
daunting, so my approach is to compartmentalize issues that can be
addressed.
Thank you for collecting and analysing this data!
Even on a much smaller scale than yours, DMARC
On 4/9/2018 1:19 PM, Aaron Richton wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018, Jesse Thompson wrote:
2) When people start seeing headers rewritten we can use that as an
attention mechanism to make people aware of email authentication as a
concept, and convince people to tackle the other indirect mail flow
iss
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018, Jesse Thompson wrote:
2) When people start seeing headers rewritten we can use that as an
attention mechanism to make people aware of email authentication as a
concept, and convince people to tackle the other indirect mail flow
issues.
What / where are you intending to re
I really appreciate your thoughts on this.
The amount of DMARC data for a large decentralized university is
daunting, so my approach is to compartmentalize issues that can be
addressed. I'm looking at securing the second-level domain first, with
the intention of encouraging campus entities to
Well, that's the nature of production changes. The best you can do is what
you have available with your tools and the standards.
At some point, you've exhausted the corrections you can make based on
p=none, and you need to make the next step, which is p=quarantine pct=0.
You should stay at that
Well, that's the crux of the issue. If I make this change and a
DMARC-incompatible mailing list forwards a message to Gmail, the message
might be treated as spam. But I don't know which mailing lists are
DMARC-incompatible until after I make this change. I'm in a state of
paralysis. :-(
J
I know when I suggested it originally on this list, some folks found some
bugs, which we fixed.
That said, the spam team seems to reinvent dmarc parsing periodically (on
top of our main dmarc processing), and it's often less than correct. In
this case, it'll just mean that mail that doesn't pass
Great, thank you! I'll give it a whirl and report back if anything
negative happens.
Jesse
On 4/5/2018 7:42 PM, Todd Herr via mailop wrote:
We saw no negative side effects when we did it here for our domains, and
we did it for precisely the reason you're planning to do it, to trigger
Google
We saw no negative side effects when we did it here for our domains, and we
did it for precisely the reason you're planning to do it, to trigger Google
Groups.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:00 PM, Jesse Thompson
wrote:
> Does anyone know of any negative side effects of setting a DMARC policy:
> p=qua
Does anyone know of any negative side effects of setting a DMARC policy:
p=quarantine pct=0 ?
Is it equivalent to: p=none ?
I'm curious because I want to trigger Google Groups (and maybe others list
forwarders?) to rewrite the From in a DMARC compliant fashion *prior* to
changing the domain's
11 matches
Mail list logo
