> but is it an undue or unreasonable one in the current landscape

Yes. In the first place, this should not even be a thing. Two corporations should not be in control of who can send e-mail. If they want to mark not having DMARC as spam, mark it as spam, or better yet flag it with a specific warning about the domain, but these games with refusing to deliver are just bullshit and essentially force a monopoly where other e-mail providers cannot compete because their e-mails aren't delivered.

▲

mike_hearn 8 hours ago | parent [-]

No, not delivering is much better. You get a clean error message that tells you exactly what to do, it can be fixed in minutes. Spamfoldering email for not having DMARC would be a mistake, it might be years before low volume senders notice and figure out what's wrong (if they ever do).

▲

anonymous908213 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> You get a clean error message that tells you exactly what to do

We are literally talking about a situation where this is not happening! And the problem is that it's not just this. Once you give them a license to police e-mail, they start policing e-mail for all kinds of arbitrary and inscrutable reasons. If this were going to be done, it should really be formalized as an industry standard by an independent consortium, not up to the whims of Microsoogle.

	▲	mike_hearn 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Are we? Microsoft is bouncing emails with instructions on what to do. DMARC, DKIM and the rest are industry standards set through an independent consortium (it's called the MAAWG iirc)