Hacker News Reader

I actually totally agree with this. There's too much risk involved with scams disguised as legitimate services because the developers of said service couldn't be bothered to add 1 or 2 dns records.

Although there seems that there hasn't been any communication which is the bad thing here. However, nobody looks at those and sending detailed emails back seems like a good enough solution.

View on HN

Maybe they should also work on what their users are sending as well.

Unfortunately, the people abusing these are very persistent and adding more checks will just increase the sophistication of such attacks which works against the interests of the target.

This stops disguising yourself as a legitimate service.

Charge for the service. How much spam do you get from Fastmail?

If they did that you’d decry censorship.

Allowing basically ~whatever, but proving the sender address is an obviously good approach to me.

I don't know what "v=DMARC1; p=none;" is proving to anyone when DKIM and SPF are already aligned but sure whatever. Just wish they'd given some warning!

email is weird, without this it doesn't perform the checks at all

Agreed. There's no additional verity provided by adding a DNS record with a static line of text. Reminds me of airport security theater: meaningless hoops for citizens to jump thru under the guise of stopping bad actors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com