[dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?
shalf at CheshireEng.com
Tue Oct 27 23:42:08 PDT 2015
> I look at it a little differently, it's the people (mailing list
> operators) who want to /modify/ my message that need to take steps to
> not break my DMARC in the process.
I look at it a little differently.
As an end-user of email services I don't really care about your DMARC, but I do want my messages delivered to fellow list-members, and I want theirs delivered to me. If you've done something to your service (such as p=reject) which impedes delivery of the mail I want to exchange then you are not serving me (your customer) well. It is incumbent on /you/ to figure out how to send and receive messages on my behalf, even when I participate in email lists.
If ARC makes it easier for email services to fulfill the mission I ask of them, then I'll be satisfied with that. If DMARC+ARC results in improved classification results such that I see fewer unwanted messages so much the better.
I share your regret (expressed elsewhere) that some major email services adopted p=reject before they had developed and proved a workable solution for common mailing list practice.
> If a mailing list passes a message without modification (allowing for
> additional List- headers, and other normal headers), my DMARC signature
> is still valid.
Maybe. But if they do that they dissatisfy me, their customer. I want the Subject tags that email lists insert - they help me recognize and organize list messages. I want the footer they append to messages - they help me interact with the list service when needed.
1: In this case I'm assuming "you" are such a service. As I've said elsewhere, if you only originate and/or receive messages on behalf of your organization then I'm not your customer and I have no concern with how you use DMARC.
More information about the dmarc-discuss