𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚎𝚊 
Companies that focus on "Email" but fails to set up a DMARC record that is valid always amuses me
bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@selea tbh, i'm not really sure if all the "anti-spam" measures are good or not. SPF is okish, DKIM maybe although it's quite complicated. the DMARC percentage stuff looks like madness to debug if mails go missing.
furthermore those things are what google uses to press others into just moving to gmail because they have an increasingly insane (and invisible) set of rules on what is spam.
@selea
> DKIM is kinda worthless unless you use DMARC tbh.
why? i can just try to check spf and/or dkim, dmarc just tells me how i should handle things on _my_ system regarding mail from that domain. which feels a bit weird and superfluous. i'm not an email-pro though, so i might be missing something here :)
DKIM only provides extra verification,, but with no policy on how to handle missing or failing signatures makes DKIM kinda useless by itself - that is what DMARC does. Plus it given it admins the opportunity to track spoofing attempts and take the responsibility to reduce spam and spoofing from the domain that they control.
@selea i had assumed that failing DKIM signatures always should result in "it's spoofed, throw it away" :)
the tracking part feels weird, because it makes my system do things another one tells me to, sending mails notifing about spoofing attempts.
@bonifartius
DKIM is kinda worthless unless you use DMARC tbh.
There is no reason to tinker with pct either, just keep it standard.
But well, it all boils down to if the recieving party actually checks the DMARC of the sender (most competent provider does).