> If a mail client does not support dmarc,or happens to move reject policy emails to junk (as opposed to not delivering at all). And the user loses all their mo

> If a mail client does not support dmarc,or happens to move reject policy emails to junk (as opposed to not delivering at all). And the user loses all their money to a phishing campaign,would cloudflare be held responsible? No. This argument is based on a long-outdated understanding of the law. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act extends immunity even to services exercising editorial control over content. See Zeran v. AOL: [L]awsuits seeking to hold a service liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions – such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content – are barred. The purpose of this statutory immunity is not difficult to discern. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium. [...] Section 230 was enacted, in part, to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication [...] ." "Congress' clear objective in passing §230 of the CDA was to encourage the development of technologies, procedures and techniques by which objectionable material could be blocked or deleted."[5] Since distributor liability would have the effect of disincentivizing the filtering of content by third parties, the court found that such laws were in conflict with the "purpose and objectives of congress," and were thus preempted