Gmail and spam, a request

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
52 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Peter Ajamian
On 23/03/20 4:23 am, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Coming back to the original problem, that Gmail was flagging
> Jaroslaw's non-list messages as spam. Would removing Jaroslaw's
> email address from Postfix list mail have changed the 'spam'
> disposition of his non-list messages? The response from Gmail staff
> implies that his list messages were a factor in the spam ruling (as
> reported by Jaroslaw).

Honestly, I don't think that anyone can say for sure, except possibly
some admins at Google who likely won't tell us.  Also who's to say that
Google won't change things tomorrow so that we have to jump through more
or different hoops to get messages through.

At the end of the day all we can really do is fix the things we know
about and hope for the best.


Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Peter Ajamian
In reply to this post by Viktor Dukhovni
On 23/03/20 10:55 am, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> ARC signing might be helpful, but I don't think we need to do anything
> at all.  With just one user having issues, the problem is most likely
> upstream.

It's not just one user.  I regularly have to pluck messages from my Spam
folder coming from this list from several different users.  The one user
is just an example of the issue.


Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Viktor Dukhovni
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:03:43AM +1300, Peter wrote:

> On 23/03/20 10:55 am, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > ARC signing might be helpful, but I don't think we need to do anything
> > at all.  With just one user having issues, the problem is most likely
> > upstream.
>
> It's not just one user.  I regularly have to pluck messages from my Spam
> folder coming from this list from several different users.  The one user
> is just an example of the issue.

Is there any evidence that the reason the posts land in the spam folder
is related to way the list is managed, and not the content of the
messages being misclassified your mailbox provider?

What is in the "Authentication-Results" header of the messages that
are misclassified?

--
    Viktor.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Peter Ajamian
On 23/03/20 11:09 am, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:03:43AM +1300, Peter wrote:
>
>> On 23/03/20 10:55 am, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>>> ARC signing might be helpful, but I don't think we need to do anything
>>> at all.  With just one user having issues, the problem is most likely
>>> upstream.
>>
>> It's not just one user.  I regularly have to pluck messages from my Spam
>> folder coming from this list from several different users.  The one user
>> is just an example of the issue.
>
> Is there any evidence that the reason the posts land in the spam folder
> is related to way the list is managed, and not the content of the
> messages being misclassified your mailbox provider?
>
> What is in the "Authentication-Results" header of the messages that
> are misclassified?

I recently cleaned out my Spam so I'll need to wait a day or two for
more to land there, then I'll get back to you on this with some samples.


Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Richard Salts
In reply to this post by Viktor Dukhovni
On 23/03/2020 8:55 am, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> It is best to not modify the message headers at all, which iseffectively what the Postfix list does (it adds a Sender: header which should not be covered by the upstream DKIM signature).

I know the Sender header has traditionally been used by mailing lists,
but would the Resent-Sender from rfc5322 be better in case people send
to the postfix mailing list with a DKIM signature for an existing Sender
header

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Viktor Dukhovni
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:43:07PM +1100, Richard Salts wrote:

> On 23/03/2020 8:55 am, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > It is best to not modify the message headers at all, which iseffectively what the Postfix list does (it adds a Sender: header which should not be covered by the upstream DKIM signature).
>
> I know the Sender header has traditionally been used by mailing lists,
> but would the Resent-Sender from rfc5322 be better in case people send
> to the postfix mailing list with a DKIM signature for an existing Sender
> header

No.  The correct header for mailing lists is Sender.  DKIM signatures
should not cover the Sender header (unless the intention is specifically
to preclude mailing-list distribution).

--
    Viktor.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Peter Ajamian
In reply to this post by Peter Ajamian
Just noticed a couple more in my Spam today from Francesc Peñalvez.  It
looks like SPF is neutral and DMARC is failing:

ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
        spf=neutral (google.com: 2604:8d00:0:1::4 is neither permitted
nor denied by best guess record for domain of
[hidden email])
smtp.mailfrom=[hidden email];
        dmarc=fail (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=QUARANTINE)
header.from=almogavers.net
Return-Path: <[hidden email]>
...
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 2604:8d00:0:1::4 is neither permitted
nor denied by best guess record for domain of
[hidden email]) client-ip=2604:8d00:0:1::4;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
        spf=neutral (google.com: 2604:8d00:0:1::4 is neither permitted
nor denied by best guess record for domain of
[hidden email])
smtp.mailfrom=[hidden email];
        dmarc=fail (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=QUARANTINE)
header.from=almogavers.net

So a couple things here:
postfix.org seems to need an SPF record so it gets an SPF=pass result
instead of neutral.

DKIM signing would help.

The big issue is that the envelope sender is rewritten to postfix.org
which causes it to fail DMARC based on the From: header's policy.  For
this you would need to rewrite the From: header as well.

Alternatively, if you were to ARC-sign the message it would probably
work as well, at least for google.  Personally I prefer to bypass ARC
all together by modifying the From: header and envelope sender and
re-signing with DKIM, only because I suspect that there are servers that
will enforce the DMARC policy but don't recognize ARC.


Peter


On 23/03/20 11:14 am, Peter wrote:

> On 23/03/20 11:09 am, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:03:43AM +1300, Peter wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/03/20 10:55 am, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>>>> ARC signing might be helpful, but I don't think we need to do anything
>>>> at all.  With just one user having issues, the problem is most likely
>>>> upstream.
>>>
>>> It's not just one user.  I regularly have to pluck messages from my Spam
>>> folder coming from this list from several different users.  The one user
>>> is just an example of the issue.
>>
>> Is there any evidence that the reason the posts land in the spam folder
>> is related to way the list is managed, and not the content of the
>> messages being misclassified your mailbox provider?
>>
>> What is in the "Authentication-Results" header of the messages that
>> are misclassified?
>
> I recently cleaned out my Spam so I'll need to wait a day or two for
> more to land there, then I'll get back to you on this with some samples.
>
>
> Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Benny Pedersen-2
On 2020-04-26 10:37, Peter Ajamian wrote:

> Just noticed a couple more in my Spam today from Francesc Peñalvez.
> It looks like SPF is neutral and DMARC is failing:
>
> ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
>        spf=neutral (google.com: 2604:8d00:0:1::4 is neither permitted
> nor denied by best guess record for domain of
> [hidden email])
> smtp.mailfrom=[hidden email];
>        dmarc=fail (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=QUARANTINE)
> header.from=almogavers.net
> Return-Path: <[hidden email]>

v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:[hidden email];
adkim=s; aspf=s

talk to [hidden email] ask for aspf not being set to strict,
also possible make fo tag on dmarc more relaxed

https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-inspector/?domain=almogavers.net

google do what thay are asked for here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Peter Ajamian
On 26/04/20 10:47 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> talk to [hidden email] ask for aspf not being set to strict,
> also possible make fo tag on dmarc more relaxed

Except that this is a thread about what messages coming from the *list*
go to spam and what the *list* can do about it.  It is not reasonable
for the mailing list owner to ask every person who's messages go to spam
because of a bad DMARC policy to change the policy.

> google do what thay are asked for here

I never said that they aren't.


Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Christian
Sorry if this has been tested before, but I joined the list only
lately.

Have you tried the google postmaster-tools for postfix.org and
especially adding the google-site-verification TXT?

Am Sonntag, den 26.04.2020, 23:07 +1200 schrieb Peter:

> On 26/04/20 10:47 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > talk to [hidden email] ask for aspf not being set to
> > strict,
> > also possible make fo tag on dmarc more relaxed
>
> Except that this is a thread about what messages coming from the
> *list*
> go to spam and what the *list* can do about it.  It is not
> reasonable
> for the mailing list owner to ask every person who's messages go to
> spam
> because of a bad DMARC policy to change the policy.
>
> > google do what thay are asked for here
>
> I never said that they aren't.
>
>
> Peter

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Francesc Peñalvez-2
I don't have the correct dkim entry in the domain?

El 26/4/2020 a les 13:18, Christian ha escrit:

> Sorry if this has been tested before, but I joined the list only
> lately.
>
> Have you tried the google postmaster-tools for postfix.org and
> especially adding the google-site-verification TXT?
>
> Am Sonntag, den 26.04.2020, 23:07 +1200 schrieb Peter:
>> On 26/04/20 10:47 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>> talk to [hidden email] ask for aspf not being set to
>>> strict,
>>> also possible make fo tag on dmarc more relaxed
>> Except that this is a thread about what messages coming from the
>> *list*
>> go to spam and what the *list* can do about it.  It is not
>> reasonable
>> for the mailing list owner to ask every person who's messages go to
>> spam
>> because of a bad DMARC policy to change the policy.
>>
>>> google do what thay are asked for here
>> I never said that they aren't.
>>
>>
>> Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Ralph Seichter-2
In reply to this post by Peter Ajamian
* [hidden email]:

> [...] this is a thread about what messages coming from the *list* go
> to spam and what the *list* can do about it. It is not reasonable for
> the mailing list owner to ask every person who's messages go to spam
> because of a bad DMARC policy to change the policy.

It is reasonable. People who configure DMARC et al correctly don't see
their messages weeded out as spam when using this mailing list. If some
people screw their settings up, it is not for the list manager to work
around that. The Postfix mailing list is set up well.

Also, for the umpteenth time, one can use separate (sub)domains
specifically for mailing lists, like I do. That way one can protect
one's business-related domains with strict policies and still use
relaxed policies for mailing lists.

-Ralph
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Richard Damon
In reply to this post by Peter Ajamian
On 4/26/20 7:07 AM, Peter wrote:
> On 26/04/20 10:47 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> talk to [hidden email] ask for aspf not being set to
>> strict, also possible make fo tag on dmarc more relaxed
>
> Except that this is a thread about what messages coming from the
> *list* go to spam and what the *list* can do about it.  It is not
> reasonable for the mailing list owner to ask every person who's
> messages go to spam because of a bad DMARC policy to change the policy.

Except that if the sender is sending from a domain with an email policy
that effectively says, "This domain is intended to send sensitive
information, please do not accept messages that do not come directly
from us", then it is reasonable to tell the sender that they are sending
messages outside their domains (implied) terms of service, and either
they need to use a different service that is compatible with a mailing
list, or have the domain fix its implied declaration of usage.

This is exactly what DMARC is intended to indicate. Configuring a domain
with DMARC says that it is intended that message only be accepted if
they come directly from the sender. It was designed for things like
Banks to be able to send out messages that the recipients can trust came
from them and not a scammer. (A scammer could fake this out with a
'look-alike' domain, but that leaves a strong back trail to the scammer,
who tend to want to hid in the darkness of the web.

--
Richard Damon

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Peter Ajamian
In reply to this post by Ralph Seichter-2
On 26/04/20 11:26 pm, Ralph Seichter wrote:

> * [hidden email]:
>
>> [...] this is a thread about what messages coming from the *list* go
>> to spam and what the *list* can do about it. It is not reasonable for
>> the mailing list owner to ask every person who's messages go to spam
>> because of a bad DMARC policy to change the policy.
>
> It is reasonable. People who configure DMARC et al correctly don't see
> their messages weeded out as spam when using this mailing list. If some
> people screw their settings up, it is not for the list manager to work
> around that. The Postfix mailing list is set up well.

I disagree.  People may configure strict DMARC policies for various
different reasons, may be unaware of the issues that causes and may not
even have control over the domain at all.  Granted people posting to
this list are generally expected to have a bit mroe control over their
domain than that, but this will not always be the case.

But all of that is not even the point.  Mail coming from a particular
mailing list may originate from the original poster but it is eventually
sent from the list, and as such it is the responsibility of the list
owner to make sure that the mail does not violate SPF, DKIM, DMARC or
other anti-spam measures.  To do so does not look to other servers like
incorrectly configured DMARC on the part of the original poster but
rather like mail coming from the list server that is spoofed or possibly
SPAM.  That is why it ends up in people's Spam folders, and in addition
to the issues that causes to other people on the list not being able to
read entire conversations it also has the effect of making the list
server look like it is originating spoofed mail and hence SPAM which
negatively affects the IP reputation of the list server.  So the
consequences of the strict DMARC configurations are bourne by the other
list members and the list server itself which makes it essential for the
list owner to deal with it.

> Also, for the umpteenth time, one can use separate (sub)domains
> specifically for mailing lists, like I do. That way one can protect
> one's business-related domains with strict policies and still use
> relaxed policies for mailing lists.

And all of these are actions that need to be taken by the originator of
the message, and often times by some upstream admin of his email that he
cannot control or influence.  This is too much to expect every poster to
conform to these expectations, and more importantly there will always be
posters who do not regardless of how much you expect it.


Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Peter Ajamian
In reply to this post by Richard Damon
On 27/04/20 12:00 am, Richard Damon wrote:

> On 4/26/20 7:07 AM, Peter wrote:
>> On 26/04/20 10:47 pm, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>> talk to [hidden email] ask for aspf not being set to
>>> strict, also possible make fo tag on dmarc more relaxed
>>
>> Except that this is a thread about what messages coming from the
>> *list* go to spam and what the *list* can do about it.  It is not
>> reasonable for the mailing list owner to ask every person who's
>> messages go to spam because of a bad DMARC policy to change the policy.
>
> Except that if the sender is sending from a domain with an email policy
> that effectively says, "This domain is intended to send sensitive
> information, please do not accept messages that do not come directly
> from us", then it is reasonable to tell the sender that they are sending
> messages outside their domains (implied) terms of service, and either
> they need to use a different service that is compatible with a mailing
> list, or have the domain fix its implied declaration of usage.
>
> This is exactly what DMARC is intended to indicate. Configuring a domain
> with DMARC says that it is intended that message only be accepted if
> they come directly from the sender. It was designed for things like
> Banks to be able to send out messages that the recipients can trust came
> from them and not a scammer. (A scammer could fake this out with a
> 'look-alike' domain, but that leaves a strong back trail to the scammer,
> who tend to want to hid in the darkness of the web.

I am so not getting into all of this anymore.  This is an ongoing
discussion about issues that the mailing list has had with messages
going to SPAM.  All of this stuff has been hashed out already, so rather
than re-hash it, please go back and read all of the thread from the
beginning, then maybe you'll understand why I seriously do not expect to
have to rehash all of this nonsense at this stage.


Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Peter Ajamian
In reply to this post by Richard Damon
On 27/04/20 12:00 am, Richard Damon wrote:
> Except that if the sender is sending from a domain with an email policy
> that effectively says, "This domain is intended to send sensitive
> information, please do not accept messages that do not come directly
> from us", then it is reasonable to tell the sender that they are sending
> messages outside their domains (implied) terms of service, and either
> they need to use a different service that is compatible with a mailing
> list, or have the domain fix its implied declaration of usage.

But that's not what DMARC does.

> This is exactly what DMARC is intended to indicate.

Ummm, no it's not.  DMARC is intended to stop mail From: header spoofing.

> Configuring a domain
> with DMARC says that it is intended that message only be accepted if
> they come directly from the sender.

I call BS on that, and in fact ARC was created specifically to allow
third parties to forward DMARC policy messages on without having them
flagged as Spam.

> It was designed for things like
> Banks to be able to send out messages that the recipients can trust came
> from them and not a scammer. (A scammer could fake this out with a
> 'look-alike' domain, but that leaves a strong back trail to the scammer,
> who tend to want to hid in the darkness of the web.

Exactly, it's designed to prevent spoofing.

And here's my rant:

This is a *public mailing list* for Christ's sake!  If you are going to
post to it then you should expect your message to be seen by the public!
  DMARC will not stop or prevent this, all that DMARC does is send the
message to Spam.  It will still be seen in the mailing list archives and
it will still land in some folder on nearly every member of this list's
mailbox.  If you have sensitive info DMARC will not stop that and you
should not be posting sensitive info to a public mailing list!


Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Ralph Seichter-2
In reply to this post by Peter Ajamian
* [hidden email]:

> People may configure strict DMARC policies for various different
> reasons, may be unaware of the issues that causes and may not even
> have control over the domain at all.

Lack of knowledge is not an excuse, period. Lack of control just means
the domain's admin needs to poke somebody up the administrative chain to
do their job. In any case, it ist not something the Postfix mailing list
must deal with, because it already -- and wisely -- does not add subject
prefixes or message footers, meaning DKIM signatures remain intact. Any
admin who uses DMARC while not having set up DKIM correctly is asking
for trouble. I won't lift a finger to work around the incompetence of
others in this case, nor do I think this list's manager should.

To aspiring admins out there: Running MTAs requires some skill. You can
do it, but you don't have to. If you decide to go ahead but are doing
things wrong, you cannot expect others to come to the rescue. At least
not free of charge.

> This is too much to expect every poster to conform to these
> expectations, and more importantly there will always be posters who do
> not regardless of how much you expect it.

Speaking for myself: I don't care one bit about that. My messages are
processed as they should be, as are those of people with worthwhile
opinions. If somebody is incapable of setting up their MTA correctly to
post via this here mailing list, I am not interested in what they might
have to say about Postfix.

-Ralph
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Benny Pedersen-2
On 2020-04-26 15:16, Ralph Seichter wrote:

> prefixes or message footers, meaning DKIM signatures remain intact. Any
> admin who uses DMARC while not having set up DKIM correctly is asking
> for trouble. I won't lift a finger to work around the incompetence of
> others in this case, nor do I think this list's manager should.

dmarc can give pass without dkim pass, so dmarc pass is not always relay
on dkim but can give pass alone from spf pass

stop make this assumtion of dkim must be there to make dmarc pass

when opendmarc is checking openARC sealing it will be more stable imho
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Richard Damon
In reply to this post by Peter Ajamian
On 4/26/20 8:15 AM, Peter wrote:

> On 27/04/20 12:00 am, Richard Damon wrote:
>> Except that if the sender is sending from a domain with an email policy
>> that effectively says, "This domain is intended to send sensitive
>> information, please do not accept messages that do not come directly
>> from us", then it is reasonable to tell the sender that they are sending
>> messages outside their domains (implied) terms of service, and either
>> they need to use a different service that is compatible with a mailing
>> list, or have the domain fix its implied declaration of usage.
>
> But that's not what DMARC does.

It is EXACTLY what DMARC does. DMARC/SPF says that if you get a message
with my domain in the From line, then it should come from only the
servers that I list in my SPF record. DMARC/DKIM says that if you get a
message with my domain in the From line, that it must be properly signed
by the source domain and unchanged thereafter. A domain with both needs
to pass one or the other.

>
>> This is exactly what DMARC is intended to indicate.
>
> Ummm, no it's not.  DMARC is intended to stop mail From: header spoofing.

And re-mailing the original message is classified as From: header
spoofing. A properly setup DMARC/DKIM (but not just DMARC/SPF) does
allow remailing if the message is kept identical in the signed respects,
so DMARC with a broken (or not setup) DKIM can't use re-mailiers at all,
and one with DMARC/DKIM can only use remailers that don't modify the
message, including the common adding of a subject 'wart' to identify
messages from the list or a message footer (or sometimes header) with
instructions about the list, included out of policy or sometimes even to
be compliant with local legal requirements.

>
>> Configuring a domain
>> with DMARC says that it is intended that message only be accepted if
>> they come directly from the sender.
>
> I call BS on that, and in fact ARC was created specifically to allow
> third parties to forward DMARC policy messages on without having them
> flagged as Spam.

ARC is a late to the party attempt to fix the misuse of DMARC. To my
knowledge it isn't even an accepted standard yet, and it asks for the
impacted 3rd party to add to its processing to allow it to become an
'approved' re-resender. It also starts with the list with being a
violator until the system 'learns' that it is ok.

>
>> It was designed for things like
>> Banks to be able to send out messages that the recipients can trust came
>> from them and not a scammer. (A scammer could fake this out with a
>> 'look-alike' domain, but that leaves a strong back trail to the scammer,
>> who tend to want to hid in the darkness of the web.
>
> Exactly, it's designed to prevent spoofing.
>
> And here's my rant:
>
> This is a *public mailing list* for Christ's sake!  If you are going
> to post to it then you should expect your message to be seen by the
> public!  DMARC will not stop or prevent this, all that DMARC does is
> send the message to Spam.  It will still be seen in the mailing list
> archives and it will still land in some folder on nearly every member
> of this list's mailbox.  If you have sensitive info DMARC will not
> stop that and you should not be posting sensitive info to a public
> mailing list!
>
>
> Peter

DMARC's purpose is to stop phishing, people pretending to be you when
they aren't. Mailing list send messages out on Behalf of you, but the
DMARC protocal wasn't built to handle this case (ARC is trying to fix
it, but is late to the game). Now, if DMARC had a level below
quarantine, that said to accept the messages even if they don't pass the
DMARC validation, and to not treat this violation as likely spam, but
maybe and a remailer warning, but it doesn't, as it wasn't intended in
its design to handle this case. Domains using DMARC and allowing users
to use mailing list are working outside the original design parameters
of DMARC.

If a mailing list gets a message from a DMARC enabled host it has just a
few possible mitigations:

1) If the sending domain has a proper DMARC/DKIM setup, the list can
just forward the message without making any modifications that would
break DKIM, provided that this falls within the policy and laws the list
run, IF DMARC/DKIM isn't setup properly, this option can't be used.

2) The list can violate the EMail RFCs, change the From header to be the
list (thus claiming authorship of the message) and distribute the
message this way. This makes if hard to identify the real author of the
message, as it no longer is in the from header, so doesn't show in many
MUA. This is the common DMARC mitigation.

3) The list can just not allow people from DMARC enable domains to post
(which is ultimately respecting the implied wishes of the domain
publishing a DMARC record). When YAHOO and AOL first abused DMARC in
this way around 2014, this was one option that was put forth in the
Mailing List community.

4) Send the message normally and take all the DMARC violations (and
possible non-reception or spam classification), this also can cause the
receiving domains that respect DMARC to send bounce messages to the
mailing list which may cause those recipients to get unsubscribed from
the list. These violations may also impact the reputation of the list
when relaying other messages that don't have the DMARC issue.


--
Richard Damon

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gmail and spam, a request

Jaroslaw Rafa
In reply to this post by Richard Damon
Dnia 26.04.2020 o godz. 08:00:56 Richard Damon pisze:
>
> This is exactly what DMARC is intended to indicate. Configuring a domain
> with DMARC says that it is intended that message only be accepted if
> they come directly from the sender. It was designed for things like
> Banks to be able to send out messages that the recipients can trust came
> from them and not a scammer.

But email providers like Google are ignoring the fact that DMARC was
intended for such purposes, and consider it an universal anti-spam measure.
Google, as a recipient, clearly indicates in their sender guidelines
(targeted at senders who have trouble with deliverability of their messages
to Gmail users - among other cases, messages being placed in Spam folder)
that the sender has to have DMARC, DKIM and SPF configured. That's the first
thing they require from you if you have any deliverability problems with
them. However, having all this set up doesn't provide any guarantee that
your email won't be qualified as spam (so why require it at all?).
BTW, with regard to messages being marked spam, DMARC reports are pretty
useless because they don't give you any information about that. And that
would be actually the most interesting thing in those reports. They only
give me information whether the message passed or failed DMARC/DKIM/SPF
check, but this tells me nothing in terms of knowing if the recipient
actually got my message or not.
What's worse, Gmail does not honor Disposition-Notification-To: header,
which could be used to determine if the recipienta ctually read my message
or not.
So sending mail to someone at Gmail is actually sending it into the
unknown...
--
Regards,
   Jaroslaw Rafa
   [hidden email]
--
"In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there
was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
123