Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC Coverage

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Mon, 15 April 2019 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691F3120441 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 08:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=RxlKgokb; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=c6x51FXV
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kkPjoJAFAXml for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 08:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (pop3.winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B1C120436 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 08:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=199; t=1555343076; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=uXKTVpHzx7pvekKAPc2uRUpMDZM=; b=RxlKgokb/2FLeWHz9lQV5TPoZXtIHBXsefrnzPUoGadT+exuvNZA3sTat0tTxq AGbrDupBy81A0sATQ+zFm5ebpaZ/Tyd//vaJdqUy/4JFe6yjqpD0fJEPdyljJzPH xD1p0NCkagPHdT2AOGuqm1xTbyA34WtOze9534PUDax9E=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.6) for dmarc@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 11:44:36 -0400
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com;
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.6) with ESMTP id 430539889.5.2112; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 11:44:36 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=199; t=1555342994; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=TCq9Lzv /VYs6hg3Dvbc1DDcfWLAXBPwYjUBz+CzXeCM=; b=c6x51FXV0FmhmabcbXI7xw6 bq/6ukAOP4cuSs/KIDQBs4H9iNfOC+iLgn01hlcARr6yNDQTkxRiPMDQgF3qIPim sJNhaHE7O9VMw/A+RqkUgFq8Fov9pPYTQ+1j3nHhl5GcBWl5cRGjI1x42vhCyzud QNEVGuT4tGVUVmsMZc4k=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.6) for dmarc@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 11:43:14 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([75.26.216.248]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.6) with ESMTP id 2002816691.9.80508; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 11:43:13 -0400
Message-ID: <5CB4A6E1.6050902@isdg.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 11:44:33 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Reply-To: hsantos@isdg.net
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <8060835.KeXT7UZBJi@kitterma-e6430> <CAJ4XoYdPXGvTxVzbU=LcZyLg+Au2mjV1h61+wXtW3C47fcfMvA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYdPXGvTxVzbU=LcZyLg+Au2mjV1h61+wXtW3C47fcfMvA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ywW84qZiMo-R7frWOuVQaHRnHKs>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC Coverage
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 15:44:44 -0000


On 4/14/2019 9:38 AM, Dotzero wrote:
> Scott, it's almost certainly an undercount as there are domains which
> validate for DMARC but do not send reports.

+1, without a doubt.


-- 
HLS