[brightball]

DMARC isn't for sending email successfully, it's for preventing other people from impersonating your domain. Without it, there's nothing stopping anybody from sending an email saying it is from [e-mail]. SPF tried. DKIM tried. Both of them had gaps.

When you use them together and have a DMARC policy that requires one of them or the other for successful delivery, it's the best current solution.

[TZubiri]

Right, and when you don't configure DMARC successfully and the recipient requires DMARC, then you cannot send email successfully.

[will4274]

Yeah. And when you don't configure your TLS certificate correctly, people can't connect to your webpage.

The anti-email authenticity standards gang has always smelled like the anti-TLS gang to me.

[timbit42]

That's a feature, not a problem.

[qurren]

Except I think I've had 1:1 personal e-mails from my domain go into a legitimate recipient's spam filter just because I didn't have DMARC set up and their mail server was flagging that "DMARC not set up == spammy domain"

[drdexebtjl]

That is perfectly reasonable. Set it up correctly.

[bombcar]

It is so much easier to set these things up with a frontier AI to walk you through the Byzantine steps.

[denkmoon]

It takes an afternoon to set up DKIM and DMARC from scratch on a debian VPS. Yeah it's a little bit byzantine but it's not rocket science.

[qurren]

Yeah I did that. Now it seems I have to set up DKIM2 and DMARC2 and DCRAP3 and DSHIT4 for another afternoon instead of just going to work and getting shit done.

[denkmoon]

Good heavens an entire other afternoon after a decadal standards update. You’ll have to spend an afternoon upgrading off XP at some point too.

[bombcar]

Too many admins just had it set to “no valid DMARC? Spam” instead of the more proper “failed DMARC? spam”.

Which is subtly different.