This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] DMARC Solution Applied to this Mailing List
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] DMARC Solution Applied to this Mailing List
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Help Re: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 73, Issue 5
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ox
andre at ox.co.za
Tue Dec 19 07:55:04 CET 2017
Hi Gert :) On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:46:37 +0100 Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 02:16:43PM +0200, ox wrote: > > Please enlighten me why RIPE does not support publish any SPF > > records? > > I do see the RRSIG, so am keen on understanding why RIPE supports > > DMARC and no SPF? > > Adam did not state RIPE NCC would "support DMARC". DMARC is full of > shit. > > What the RIPE NCC does is "activate workarounds to avoid mailing list > issues caused by other people running their domain with p=reject". > Thank you for that clarity Gert, much appreciated! Yes, DMARC is indeed a total waste of bits. SPF though, as with DNSSEC, is very useful, functional and does have majority support. As RIPE does publish RRSIG, Do you (or anyone) know of any reason why RIPE does not publish SPF? Andre
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] DMARC Solution Applied to this Mailing List
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Help Re: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 73, Issue 5
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]