DMARC-related bounces due to AOL sender; from_is_list or anonymous_list?
On one of our lists, we are recently getting a lot of bounces related to AOL's DMARC policy. We're probably getting them on all our lists, actually, it's just that this list had a pretty stiff bounce-disabling config, so we noticed it more there.
I understand that my choices for fixing this are either from_is_list or anonymous_list, and since this is an old server (2.1.12) that I recently took over (I have to stop using that excuse soon, I know), I can't do from_is_list.
I need to update desperately. In other recent discussions, though, I seen that Microsoft in particular is starting to make trouble even with from_is_list, i.e., when the sender and reply-to don't match, with the expectation being that one day their warnings will become rejections.
In that light, should I just be moving to anonymous_list anyway? Training users to identify themselves in the body of their messages seems like the potential big issue there. Anything else?
Thanks, Matt
On 11/23/2016 08:53 AM, Matt Morgan wrote:
I understand that my choices for fixing this are either from_is_list or anonymous_list, and since this is an old server (2.1.12) that I recently took over (I have to stop using that excuse soon, I know), I can't do from_is_list.
Actually, in 2.1.18+ dmarc_moderation_action is more often than not preferable to from_is_list.
See https://wiki.list.org/x/17891458 for other possible mitigations some of which apply to older Mailman versions.
I need to update desperately. In other recent discussions, though, I seen that Microsoft in particular is starting to make trouble even with from_is_list, i.e., when the sender and reply-to don't match, with the expectation being that one day their warnings will become rejections.
Actually, the current Microsoft warning is issued when the From: and To: (or Cc:) addresses are the same. This affects anonymous_list as well as DMARC mitigations.
It seems the (partial) way around all of this is to apply DMARC mitigations when necessary or always (via dmarc_moderation_action or from_is_list) and to set personalize to Full personalization so that To: is the recipient, not the list.
Without better knowledge of Microsoft's rule, it's difficult to know how to deal with it, and I'm sure Microsoft would consider such information to be proprietary.
In that light, should I just be moving to anonymous_list anyway? Training users to identify themselves in the body of their messages seems like the potential big issue there. Anything else?
As noted above, anonymous_list is not a solution in general. You might consider anonymous_list as a DMARC mitigation in pre-2.1.16 only, but better to upgrade.
-- Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
participants (2)
-
Mark Sapiro -
Matt Morgan