Re: DMARC and yahoo

Doug Royer <> Wed, 16 April 2014 00:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5D91A006C for <>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 84TtZOAamGxC for <>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22e]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6641A0065 for <>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id kx10so10144777pab.5 for <>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=X2/UOl3NwKj4HTC3l7LbkEtoj+N/NGU5v1qwGqNWDpg=; b=dJOgKIoaPfk0nc7GCHG9QpnB7xS2pA9N/0XhrDTFiMoURUbNemcKErgjqAHQIXBnC8 Fvkew0cLOIm8BpckqyxNrd892NXB4T5BmvFoZD9EeM9UtUsKjnfOLKmxV14bFcxT4GbM hl3M7X+brjqLRhLzNQldh+2pkrGhLgUNKf6dtwF2HULpkjusuDZOJyLz3Yhi8+6VuLNG wAFms6L3J33PTV6KEYmo5Y3/5LziABY9Ij5E9AK75QHcuxk3228kqtprb8t4nvv0s6IQ /N08t4SxZRRauyATDvAcfNC7E01Gq8dvL9jsQ/izzUIbify5AMURNIYf+sz31KOE04kj 7sLA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id rw4mr5227534pbc.3.1397608449386; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id yj6sm28417546pab.19.2014. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 18:34:03 -0600
From: Doug Royer <>
Organization: http://SoftwareAndServices.NET
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: DMARC and yahoo
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms050108020809000909000708"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:34:14 -0000

Yahoo does not seem to require DMARK. Simply use one of the other two 
options. I use SPF for my domains, and it makes it through their systems 
just fine.

It looks to me that some want to be able to send list email to many from 
a bogus email address (some-domain.invalid). Simply stop doing that. One 
of the responsibilities of being a list maintainer is cleaning up all of 
bounced mess from no longer valid email addresses. I have advocated in 
the past for a email header that allows a bounced message to be 
automatically routed for the correct reason back to the list maintainer 
for processing by automated processes. Maybe it is time to revisit that 

I used to get thousands of spams from forged email. I get almost none 
now. If I got thousands, Yahoo must get millions. I applaud them for 
their courage to take a stand.

On 04/15/2014 06:15 PM, mohammed serrhini wrote:
> The problem is with the alignment requirements of DMARC. That can't be 
> easily fixed without breaking existing mailing list functionality.and  
> to give others mail services had made the necessary changes.
> Yahoo recognizes that  "Yahoo is the first major email provider in the 
> world to adopt this aggressivelevel of DMARC policy on behalf of 
> theirs users."
> to protect users we do not need to be aggressive .


Doug Royer - ( /