3 ms·
That's interesting. The current top comment implies that spam filters weigh DMARC so heavily that it's essential to reliable email.
by AlexCoventry 5y ago
That's interesting. The current top comment implies that spam filters weigh DMARC so heavily that it's essential to reliable email.
- jeffbee 5y agoThat doesn't make a ton of sense, since the point of DMARC is to stop messages from being delivered. Certainly if you have a DMARC policy of p=reject and then you screw up your outbound, then your DMARC policy becomes relevant, but not in a good way. I don't see the harm in not having one.
- wila 5y ago> I don't see the harm in not having one. Email providers such as outlook and gmail think otherwise. Your emails will not be reliably delivered to them because you are missing a restrictive DMARC policy. Emails send without a DMARC policy are less trusted by default and more likely tagged as spam.
- jeffbee 5y agoThat doesn’t sound right to me. Gmail itself lacks a restrictive DMARC policy. They use p=none.
- peppermint_tea 5y agopeople cannot send spoofed emails with my domain. I'm just an enthusiastic running his mail server so no big gain. But I can see why $BIG_BANK would like to prevent people to be able send fishing email from accounts@$BIG_BANK.com from random computers on the internet...