Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains

[John Levine <[e-mail]>]

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Murray, I  have most recently used this link at AOL/Yahoo:  https://postmaster.verizonmedia.com/sender-request 
>
>I have considered using the more complete "Complaint Feedback Loop", https://postmaster.verizonmedia.com/cfl-request 
>but have never completed the process.

Complaint feedback loops just mean you say (perhaps with verification)
that you're the contact for this range of IPs or domain names, and if
a user presses the Junk button, the system can send you a copy of the
report. It's not whitelisting, and it only covers about the first
quarter inch of the long tail.

Some years back people kept asking Spamhaus to set up a whitelist, so
they hired me to do it. Technically it worked fine, but it soon became
apparent that the only people who were interested weren't people who
we'd want to whitelist. The good quality senders get their mail
delivered already, the terrible ones didn't bother, and all we heard
from were people who sometimes sent some spam along with the good mail
but assured us they were nice people. (Many universities fall into
this category.) I think you'll find that all of the existing whitelist
like things are a sideshow to the company's real business of
deliverability consulting.

For DMARC, it would be nice if there were a shared list of credible
forwarders, not to automatically accept their mail, but just to say
they're good enough that you can believe what's in their ARC seals
when you're doing the usual spam filtering. You can't just let people
sign themselves up for a list like that, since every dodgy bulk mailer
will figure this will get them an extra 2% delivery, and we've never
gotten past a vague hope that we could canvass people we know to make
a combined set of mailing lists hosts we know.

R's,
John