[dmarc-discuss] On Inbound DMARC Support
Steven M Jones
smj at crash.com
Wed Jun 18 15:06:10 PDT 2014
On 06/18/2014 05:32 AM, Solomon, Dianne B via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> I learned this week that two of the major players in enterprise email
> security -- Proofpoint and IronMail -- do not support DMARC. Said
> one vendor to me, "I understand your inbound use case for DMARC, we
> just don't hear it very often."
BofA has been their customer since 2005, and has been asking for inbound
DMARC support from Proofpoint literally for years now. Of course it took
them so long to get DKIM support working properly, I suppose I shouldn't
Anyway - yes, making sure your vendors hear these requests is useful.
> So adoption is growing -- meaning more and more companies are putting
> the authentication tools in place to protect consumers through ISPs,
> but in the B2B email space, it is virtually ignored.
I do think DMARC has a useful role to play in the B2B space, but there's
usually a more urgent case for deploying it in business-to-consumer
scenarios. If you're looking for the low hanging fruit, getting your B2C
mailstreams into shape for a "p=quarantine" or "p=reject" probably wins.
If you have the resources and management support to pursue both in
parallel, great. If you have to prioritize, I'd recommend B2C first.
That said, on the B2B side I always come back to an example from some
years back where a large networking vendor was attacked by phishers
impersonating their HR & benefits provider. It mirrors the B2C case, the
consumers just happen to be employees, and it's a compelling reason to
be looking for receiver-side DMARC from your vendors.
> Businesses rely on spam filters, and technologies like Proofpoint's
> TAP, both of limited use against spearphishing and other targeted
> attack vectors.
I believe there are some announcements expected shortly, and both
Symantec and Halon are already offering it as a cloud filtering service.
(I think I'm forgetting another service...)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dmarc-discuss