Re: New email address

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > I don't think that's going to be anything but unwelcome noise. What
> > would they do if they became aware of the issue? They could switch
> > providers, but that only works for so long. As soon as Gmail switches
> > to p=reject, we've lost. We got away with doing it for Yahoo because
> > there's not a lot of people using that -- not on these lists anyway.
>
> On further thought I think Gmail going p=reject is the wrong thing to
> worry about. The thing we need to check is how major mail providers
> like Gmail and Yahoo handle SPF failures *today*. There are plenty of
> domains we probably don't want to miss emails from that *already* have
> p=reject. For example if a Google employee mails us from @google.com
> [*] today that domain has p=reject so will everyone reading the list
> on Gmail or Yahoo miss the email? I bet other major companies have
> p=reject on their corporate domains as well.
>

Google doesn't actually reject, but it increases the likelyhood of it
hitting spam significantly. However, they put a fairly low value on the SPF
records. In my experience, it seems they put a much higher value on DKIM
(failed or not).

Of course, Google also only actually *supports* email if both sender and
receiver is on gmail. Anything else is "we hope it works". (Yes, I have
official responses from google paid support saying they only support
scenarios where both sender and receiver is on gmail)

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/