BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] DMARC, SPF, DKIM
- Subject: [Discuss] DMARC, SPF, DKIM
- From: dsr at randomstring.org (Dan Ritter)
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:37:34 -0500
- In-reply-to: <SN1PR04MB1856C8E2C88CF7251082D385DCA80@SN1PR04MB1856.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
- References: <SN1PR04MB1856C8E2C88CF7251082D385DCA80@SN1PR04MB1856.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:16:01PM +0000, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote: > Because I'm pretty sure there's a relatively high concentration of people here who maintain their own mail servers, I want to bring this up as an often overlooked practice you should be following: > > It is advisable to use DMARC (https://dmarc.org/), in addition to SPF and/or DKIM. DMARC addresses common problems of SPF and DKIM; specifically, DMARC was created because so many domains have SPF and DKIM misconfigured, resulting in recipient mail servers often ignoring the SPF and DKIM failures. > > Utilizing *all* SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, yields the highest confidence threshold, and best result. I have been perfectly happy running randomstring.org (at home) and $WORKPLACE's mail servers with none of DMARC, SPF or DKIM for years and years now. There was a short period of time where aol.com and yahoo.com didn't want to accept mail from me directly. That time went away some years ago. -dsr-
- Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] DMARC, SPF, DKIM
- From: blu at nedharvey.com (Edward Ned Harvey (blu))
- [Discuss] DMARC, SPF, DKIM
- References:
- [Discuss] DMARC, SPF, DKIM
- From: blu at nedharvey.com (Edward Ned Harvey (blu))
- [Discuss] DMARC, SPF, DKIM
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] DMARC, SPF, DKIM
- Next by Date: [Discuss] DMARC, SPF, DKIM
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] DMARC, SPF, DKIM
- Next by thread: [Discuss] DMARC, SPF, DKIM
- Index(es):