On Aug 2, 2022, at 4:31 PM, John Levine via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
It appears that Michael Thomas via NANOG <mike@mtcc.com> said:
On 8/2/22 12:30 PM, Jim Popovitch via NANOG wrote:
It's been doing it for ages for p=reject, but not p=none (the latter being Jared's situation)
I don't understand Jared's concern. His DMARC policy, like mine, is p=none which tells receivers to do nothing DMARC-y with our messages. I don't get any sort of blowback from nanog posts that I can recall seeing.
I'm sort of surprised that an org would have p=reject when its users use outside mailing lists.
Unfortunately, we lost that battle a long time ago. It's "more secure" and "best practice" so go away.
Much like inline replies v top-posting and etc.. I did manage to get someone to flip the setting so hopefully I’m not getting a lot of bounce back from this e-mail. Thanks to the kind soul who flipped the setting. - jared