A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

Fri Feb 22 18:10:43 UTC 2019

On 02/22/2019 09:28 AM, John Curran wrote:
> If you (or your email service provider) deploy an optional solution 
> (e.g. DMARC p=reject) that prevents you from receiving email from mailing 
> lists sending in conformance with existing standards, then that’s 
> your choice.

 From the perspective of inbound email (as that sounds like the focus of 
your statement) I would want my email server / service to use all 
current standards.  If the current standards are to employ DMARC 
filtering, then I would expect my email server / service provider to do so.

In some ways, I view DMARC as the latest in the line evolving standards; 
DKIM, SPF, reverse DNS.  Each of which have been controversial on their own.

I also believe in actually honoring what domain owners publish.  I 
believe that actually rejecting with SPF's "-all" and DMARC's 
"p=reject".  I say this because I want to provide — hopefully gentle — 
push back against / feedback to the publisher for them to fix their 
problems.

Even if you don't reject despite domain owner's indication of the 
preference, I think you should use that signal in the rest of your 
hygiene filters.

I also believe that mailing lists need to evolve with the times to 
support the current standards.  IMHO they don't get a pass because they 
are mailing lists and have always worked that way.

> One doesn’t communicate with folks who chose (or let their service 
> provider chose) not to receive email accordingly existing standards. 

Industry standards change, and senders need to keep up with the times.

What those standards are and how appropriate they are is independent.

-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4008 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190222/00315e1e/attachment.bin>