| ▲ | smartmic 6 hours ago |
| I am self-hosting my (secondary) email and have only implemented SPF and DKIM. This works fine on a practical level for me. What would be the benefit of setting up DMARC on top? |
|
| ▲ | bawolff 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| DMARC is essentially an opt-in to strict mode. Primarily it prevents other people from forging email to look like it is coming from you. The goal of dmarc is to prevent other people from impersonating you. |
|
| ▲ | cube00 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > What would be the benefit of setting up DMARC on top? Some mail providers will junk your mail if you don't have a reject/quarantine DMARC policy because you're seen as enabling the spammers so everything out of your domain must be punished. |
| |
|
| ▲ | asimpletune 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because if someone spoofs an email coming from your domain DMARC tells the receiver what to do with the spoofed email. |
| |
| ▲ | comrade1234 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Google, Microsoft, Amazon and others send me summary reports of people spoofing my domains. I have dmarc set for them to accept the email, mark it spam (presumably) and send me a report. I really should and can tell them to reject the spam completely - another setting in dmarc but haven't yet out of laziness basically. | |
| ▲ | kamma4434 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And what is the sane way to handle a spoofed email? | | |
| ▲ | thesuitonym 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | `p=reject`, ESPECIALLY for your personal email. `p=quarantine` is really only useful if you suspect your marketing department has set up some email blaster somewhere. | |
| ▲ | winstonwinston 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Realistically spoofed address (unauthenticated email) will be treated as spam and it’ll be implicitly quarantined or rejected as such by many well-known mail receivers. You can make this an explicit “reject” by publishing DMARC policy for your domain. For example, gmail.com treats unauthenticated email as spam implicitly, regardless of DMARC policy. | |
| ▲ | azeemba 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's what the policy setting tells the recipient. You can tell them to trest it as normal, send it to spam or delete it. The report that they send you is useful for you to make sure your emails that you expect to go through are going through. | |
| ▲ | toast0 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Reject it in the SMTP transaction. |
| |
| ▲ | AshamedCaptain 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And SPF doesn't? | | |
| ▲ | aaronmdjones an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | No, it doesn't. In the following SMTP conversation: MAIL FROM: foo@example.net
RCPT TO: victim@example.com
DATA
From: service@paypal.co.uk
To: victim@example.com
Subject: We are updating our Terms of Service
[...]
SPF checks whether the sending host is allowed to send e-mail from example.net (the envelope sender).The recipient sees service@paypal.co.uk (the From address on the inner message), because most ESPs do them the great disservice of not indicating that the sender identities are not aligned. Adding a DMARC record to a domain requires that e-mail whose inner messages claim to be from that domain must have sender alignment to the envelope sender. The above message would pass SPF (if the spammer owns example.net and has created SPF records for themselves) but would fail DMARC (paypal.co.uk's DMARC record exists, so alignment is required, and yet example.net != paypal.co.uk, so they are not aligned). In this case their DMARC policy says to reject the message, so (if the recipient is checking DMARC) it would either be rejected outright or it would land in Spam/Quarantine rather than Inbox. | |
| ▲ | ivlad 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Technically, no. SPF allows to say “these IPs are authorised to send emails as example.com”, where DMARC allows to say “I as domain owner recommend to quarantine emails that fail SPF and DKIM”, it also allows finer alignment (ie, matching between different “from” parameters) configuration and reporting by the receivers. Of course, with absence of DNARC policies, receivers default to some internal defaults, or may ignore the policies altogether. But at least, the big ones send DMARC reports. | |
| ▲ | wolttam 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not always. An email has a valid SPF when its return path email’s domain permits the sending server’s IP. But that email may have a forged From: header (which causes an SPF mis-alignment), and the receiving server checks the DMARC of *the From header* domain to determine how to handle that mis-alignment. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bombcar 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The biggest benefit I saw in a small domain was greatly reduced backscatter spam. Before someone’d randomly make up a billion emails on my domain and send “from” them, and I’d get various out of office replies, etc (catch all) - that basically never happens anymore. |