Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Freebytes's commentslogin


> DMARC Policy

> Requirement: Must exist (minimum p=none)

This doesn't support ggp's claim.


Some large companies have started blocking domains that do not have DMARC. It is a simple DNS entry. (Easier than SPF.) You should add it to all of your domains even though it accomplishes very little other than meeting the requirements of some larger companies.


SPF did solve an issue. Domain impersonation is no longer as much of an issue if you are strict against SPF failures. DMARC, on the other hand, solved absolutely nothing.


One solution would be whitelist only. You must specifically whitelist a domain or email address, and everything else is blocked. If someone wants to send you an email, you must get their email address.

However, if you are using it to sign up for a service online, the domain often does not match the sender. You might sign up at the example.com website, but you get an email from noreply@auth-example.com as the email address.


You are thinking of approved domains only, and perhaps people can vote them out. But, what you are describing is an RBL (in this case a real time whitelist instead). I like the ability for existing members to be able to vote out other members, but you run into the issue of spammers creating a million domains and then being able to vote out all legitimate members.


Not to mention that the larger companies are incentivized not to deliver your email due to low volume. If your service does not work, companies will be encouraged to use Google or Microsoft instead.


The real reason p=none persists is because people would rather err on the side of email being delivered that is actually junk than having a miss of legitimate mail. (This also the reason for so many soft failure entries in SPF records.)


This is true. Here’s a cautionary tale to that end. My org’s IT recently introduced, without input, an ai filtering tool to automatically filter junk email. It apparently worked too well. In an ironic twist of fate, it filtered a raft of emails (across multiple domains, including tickets and account reps!) to IT from an important vendor about contract renewal into junk that ultimately resulted in leaving the vendor no choice but to suspend service until the bill was paid (they waited until the very large bill was over two months past due to do this, to their credit).

When I learned about this during the post-mortem I was incensed, to say the least. Email mgmt is part of a professional’s job, for better or worse. Accountability for that doesn’t suddenly evaporate because of a scenario like this. I don’t practice zero inbox for fun. I do it for my sanity and effectiveness. Technology can’t magically solve every problem.


I don't mind p=none. I'm more bent out of shape about policies that tell me to reject that, if followed, would result in the loss of legit email.


Google is not the only email provider in the world, though. Not all email services are global corporations, and we must be careful never to interrupt the services of independent email providers.


If it comes from alice@foobar and validates to foobar, Alice sent it


The memories cause issues for me, because when I ask for something unrelated to my current projects, it makes the incorrect assumption that I am always referencing those projects when asking questions.

And, if I tell it, "No, I am asking about Postgresql." then it might update the memory that I am using Postgresql for my project instead of realizing that I am asking two separate (which is why I opened a different chat in the first place). Other times, though, it is helpful not needing to be verbose in my explanation.


I am often asked "What do you do?" when I meet someone new. I know they are asking about my job, but I throw off the expectations by saying, "Oh, I like to play video games and watch movies primarily." This is usually followed by, "Sorry, I meant what do you do for a living?" I will then, of course, tell them what they expect to hear; however, even the question "What do you do for a living?" implies that we live to work. I play video games and watch movies for living. I work merely to survive and buy the things that allow me to live my life the way I want.


maybe it implies some amount of "live to work" etymologically, but the word "living" in that context specifically refers to living in the financial sense (the act of living wouldn't really make sense in that sentence)

you live to play video games and watch movies, but you make a living by working


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: