-----Original Message-----
From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hector
Santos
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 9:30 AM
To: dmarc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Ietf Dkim
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less kludge alternative to
draft-
kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts
On 11/16/2016 1:09 PM, Terry Zink wrote:
This means ARC will be needed not only for mailing lists which modify
the header or body of an email, but for EVERY mailing list and EVERY
forwarded email or EVERYTIME the recipient has been modified and the
email leaves the ADMD boundary. From a DMARC point of view DKIM will
not be needed anymore because it has now the same function as SPF -
verifiying the origin of direct emails - and SPF is easier to implement for
most administrators.
+1.
It basically (almost) turns DKIM into SPF. That's not that appealing a
solution.
For exclusive policies (SPF -ALL), you really don't need DKIM, DMARC or ARC
for that matter since the receiver (at least ours) will never accept the
payload
anyway, i.e. it never gets to the SMTP "DATA"
state. SPF does not require you to accept the mail for the hard reject policy
(-ALL).
Hector, the reality is that most mailbox providers do not reject on SPF -all
because so many senders don't understand what they are "saying" with -all and
the mailbox providers are the ones who get the complaints about mail not
getting delivered. THAT is reality.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html