Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What DMARC Protects You From, and What It Does Not

senderledger.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: What DMARC Protects You From, and What It Does Not

#41

Post by kube-system »

sylware wrote: post #38
kube-system wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a conspiracy theory that it is hard to maintain reliable delivery with self-hosting email. It is primarily because email filters are in part based on trust relationships, and huge amounts of spam come (or at least, did) from relatively unknown originating servers.

Spam does not work with email addresses using IP literals.

Because, as I just said, it's unlikely to be deliverable.

Re: What DMARC Protects You From, and What It Does Not

#42

Post by inigyou »

sylware wrote: post #39
drdexebtjl wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think DMARC is missing support for homing pigeon characteristics such as the markings and colors on its crest and plumage. As being self-hosted, without paying the IANA and ISP mob, I am still blocked to send email to gmail.com.

Regulation on small tech interop is exactly for guys like you.

I thought it was a joke, that Gmail should be mandated to support receiving by carrier pigeon.

Re: What DMARC Protects You From, and What It Does Not

#43

Post by inigyou »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #29
sylware wrote: post #6

I think DMARC is missing email address with IPv[46] literals support. As being self-hosted, without paying the DNS mob, I am still blocked to send email to gmail.com because such email addresses do throw out of whack gogol code. Email addresses with IPv[46] literals are intrinsincly stronger than SPF. If in the envelope or any of the 'from' headers (if my memory does not fail me, there are few more headers to scan),…

Most people don't own their IP range so it's moot point to support it.

Most people use Gmail, but that isn't an excuse to remove non-gmail support from email.

Re: What DMARC Protects You From, and What It Does Not

#44

Post by drdexebtjl »

inigyou wrote: post #42
sylware wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation on small tech interop is exactly for guys like you.

I thought it was a joke, that Gmail should be mandated to support receiving by carrier pigeon.

You could even say the joke flew right over their head :)

—-

Sent from my pigeon

Re: What DMARC Protects You From, and What It Does Not

#45

Post by sylware »

inigyou wrote: post #43
PunchyHamster wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't own their IP range so it's moot point to support it.

Most people use Gmail, but that isn't an excuse to remove non-gmail support from email.

There are doing exactly that... slowly and surely... pure evil.

Re: What DMARC Protects You From, and What It Does Not

#46

Post by sam_lowry_ »

ThePowerOfFuet wrote: post #40
sam_lowry_ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he reposts them on his consulting page https://www.sh.consulting/blog and no, I am not affiliated. Just keeping an eye on the email deliverability topic as a hoppy.

Do you mean as a hobby?

Yes, did it for others and for my own business once, but this field is dead in EU. Everyone and their friend gave up on owning the email infra

Re: What DMARC Protects You From, and What It Does Not

#47

Post by sylware »

kube-system wrote: post #41
sylware wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spam does not work with email addresses using IP literals.

Because, as I just said, it's unlikely to be deliverable.

Spam relies on trust the user gives to the domain name in the email address of the from header, you dumb dumb.
Post reply on HN