Hacker News Reader

That doesn't make a ton of sense, since the point of DMARC is to stop messages from being delivered.

Certainly if you have a DMARC policy of p=reject and then you screw up your outbound, then your DMARC policy becomes relevant, but not in a good way. I don't see the harm in not having one.

View on HN

> I don't see the harm in not having one.

Email providers such as outlook and gmail think otherwise. Your emails will not be reliably delivered to them because you are missing a restrictive DMARC policy. Emails send without a DMARC policy are less trusted by default and more likely tagged as spam.

That doesn’t sound right to me. Gmail itself lacks a restrictive DMARC policy. They use p=none.

people cannot send spoofed emails with my domain. I'm just an enthusiastic running his mail server so no big gain. But I can see why $BIG_BANK would like to prevent people to be able send fishing email from accounts@$BIG_BANK.com from random computers on the internet...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com