ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Real DMARC damage

2017-06-09 11:40:38
Tom,

Absent providing any other data points, how does this tie in with DMARC doing 
damage? 

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of tom p.
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:01 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; IETF discussion list; Shishio Tsuchiya
Subject: Re: Real DMARC damage

Resurrecting an old thread ....

Something just changed.  In the past week, my ESP has decided that anything
with a domain name of 'google.com' in 'From:' is junk and should not be
forwarded to me.

Previously, the only such mail to be wrongly classified as junk was that from 
a
rival manufacturer (which had a certain logic to it:-).

I had been wondering why the discussion on the IPv6 list about 64-bit
boundaries was so disjointed and I now see that half of it, the google.com
half, was no longer reaching me.

AFAIK there is nothing I can do to influence the ESP to change its mind.
I have been reclassifying individual e-mail from that other manufacturer as
not-junk for years and my ESP takes not a blind bit of notice.

So yes, real damage to the IETF.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Shishio Tsuchiya" <shtsuchi(_at_)arista(_dot_)com>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; 
"IETF discussion list"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 3:42 AM

As far as I know,
google.com
microsoft.com
yahoo.com
aol.com
are already p=reject

arista.com is p=quarantine.

I think google.com is one of great contributor of ietf mailing list
but
sometimes old mailing list suspect the mail as spam .
I recovered some mail from my spam folder.
I hope the mailman update to new one.
https://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC

Does this mail also suspect spam?

Regards,
-Shishio


On 2017/04/30 6:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Am I the only IETF list admin who's had to deal with genuine DMARC
damage today?

gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org had four subscriptions suspended for excessive
bounces, all caused
by mail from one participant whose sending domain has published a
p=reject policy

Bizarrely, one of the subscriptions disabled was @gmane.org. It's a
very strange
choice for them to respect p=reject.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter






<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>