On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:00:20PM +0100, Philip Homburg wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Philip Homburg <pch-ietf-6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >wrote: > >> In my experience, essentially no mail gets lost if you leave out SPF, DKIM, > >> DMARC. The only exception is gmail that occasionally rejects e-mail. > > > >"no mail gets lost" != "gmail occasionally rejects my mail" > > What I meant to write is that when I take all e-mail targets that I send e-mail > to, leaving out gmail, then sending mail without SPF, DKIM, DMARC works just > fine. > > Gmail is an exception because it seems that gmail is broken if you deliver > mail without SPF, etc. over IPv6 to gmail. That's unique to gmail. The problem is twofold: a) gmail has a huge number of mailboxes, so if you can't deliver to them without SPF/DKIM/DMARC, then your mail truly is broken, b) they could be setting the rule, so that even if you don't mind (a), you soon will feel the pain. > So if your outgoing mail doesn't have SPF, etc. and you do have IPv6, then > you have to think about what to do with gmail. As a user, when I send email, I don't want to think about this sort of thing. An admin has to think about this sort of thing, and it's looking a lot like email is nowhere near the relatively easy service to run that it was in the 90s. > In some sense it is amazing how reliable e-mail is. E-mail seems to be > reliable enough that gmail rejecting the occasional e-mail immediately > makes it the most unreliable e-mail provider (for my e-mail). > That's also an amazing success story. Well, I adore email, and email lists. Screw the haters. But it's true that we have a problem, and if we don't manage it then email will be obsolete and I'll be sad. > >Do you imagine that you may be making different choices than others? > > Imagine that some will be making different chocies than me, yes. Balkanizing email doesn't sound very good to me. Nico --