Resurrecting an old thread .... Something just changed. In the past week, my ESP has decided that anything with a domain name of 'google.com' in 'From:' is junk and should not be forwarded to me. Previously, the only such mail to be wrongly classified as junk was that from a rival manufacturer (which had a certain logic to it:-). I had been wondering why the discussion on the IPv6 list about 64-bit boundaries was so disjointed and I now see that half of it, the google.com half, was no longer reaching me. AFAIK there is nothing I can do to influence the ESP to change its mind. I have been reclassifying individual e-mail from that other manufacturer as not-junk for years and my ESP takes not a blind bit of notice. So yes, real damage to the IETF. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shishio Tsuchiya" <shtsuchi@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>; "IETF discussion list" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 3:42 AM > As far as I know, > google.com > microsoft.com > yahoo.com > aol.com > are already p=reject > > arista.com is p=quarantine. > > I think google.com is one of great contributor of ietf mailing list but > sometimes old mailing list suspect the mail as spam . > I recovered some mail from my spam folder. > I hope the mailman update to new one. > https://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC > > Does this mail also suspect spam? > > Regards, > -Shishio > > > On 2017/04/30 6:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Am I the only IETF list admin who's had to deal with genuine DMARC damage today? > > > > gen-art@xxxxxxxx had four subscriptions suspended for excessive bounces, all caused > > by mail from one participant whose sending domain has published a p=reject policy > > > > Bizarrely, one of the subscriptions disabled was @gmane.org. It's a very strange > > choice for them to respect p=reject. > > > > Regards > > Brian Carpenter > > > > > > >