Re: [anti-abuse-wg] DMARC Solution Applied to this Mailing List
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". Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert :) On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:46:37 +0100 Gert Doering <gert@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
participants (2)
-
Gert Doering -
ox