Top
Best
New

Posted by xmddmx 20 hours ago

Outlook.com is rejecting email from domains without DMARC(mailroute.net)
492 points | 334 commentspage 3
wbkang 17 hours ago|
This is a good thing for the actual email users. The volume of really obvious “spam” emails were through the roof that it became quite tedious to rescue legit emails. It’s not like setting up DMARC is hard either.
cowlevel 10 hours ago|
If it's not hard, what stops spammers from doing it?
physhster 18 hours ago||
Tangentially-related: Gmail has started sending completely legitimate emails to spam. DMARC/SPF/DKIM (2048 bits) all properly configured of course so there has to be something else that isn't documented.
codethief 17 hours ago||
They have been doing that for years. A long time ago there was a submission here on HN about some Ivy League college urging college applicants to provide something other than a Gmail address because application-related emails (including acceptances!) would frequently not get through.
Astronaut3315 15 hours ago|||
Started? My Gmail spam filter has been broken for several years now. Extremely obvious spam regularly ends up in the primary inbox and critical, fully legitimate messages get buried in spam. It’s a major reason why I left for another provider.
chrismorgan 11 hours ago||
Gmail send their own service notifications to spam.
netik 19 hours ago||
This has been going on for much longer than stated here - we had domain mismatch issues with outlook going back years and our policy was p=none. They’re very sensitive and mailing lists with forwarding are heavily impacted.
saagarjha 19 hours ago||
Mail security non-expert here, is this going to affect people who use alternative addresses for their Gmail account?
gushie 19 hours ago|
It affected my google workspace account
saagarjha 19 hours ago||
Do you know if it’ll affect my (personal) account? I run everything through a normal Gmail account and have forwarding for incoming email and an alias for outgoing stuff
MrDOS 49 minutes ago|||
If you're using Gmail's “Send As” feature to use a different SMTP server for outgoing mail, then yes, you must have a proper DMARC TXT record configured on the domain you send from (even if it's just `v=DMARC1; p=none`).

However, it is worth mentioning that Gmail is fully dropping the ability to use a non-Gmail SMTP server as of January: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/22370.

mike_hearn 19 hours ago|||
It shouldn't affect you. DMARC policies apply to the authenticated domain, which is Gmail.
ranger_danger 19 hours ago||
> Nobody announced it

They did: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/microsoftdefenderfo...

And it appears to be further documented here:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-office-365/anti-p...

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-office-365/email-...

And other sites were reporting about it for at least a year and a half:

https://powerdmarc.com/dmarc-outlook-email-authentication/ (see #4)

https://www.mailreach.co/blog/outlook-dmarc-requirements

donmcronald 13 hours ago||
> For domains sending over 5,000 emails per day

That's an old announcement about a different change. As far as I can tell this one is completely out of the blue. I'm shocked by the number of people in this thread advocating for spontaneous changes without any warning.

hedgehog 19 hours ago||
That says for "high volume senders" but they now apply the rules regardless of volume.
jared_stewart 18 hours ago|||
Yes, this is an older announcement from last year. Yahoo and Google did the same at that time.

The failure associated with that announcement is different. It is 5.7.515.

This new failure mode is "5.7.1 Message rejected: Message lacks SPF/DKIM/DMARC Auth Records (AS9031519)", I haven't seen any formal announcement on my end. The important thing to know about 5.7.1 is that it represents a few different failure modes, the AS9031519 is the important bit and it indicates that the domain lacks a DMARC record.

ranger_danger 19 hours ago|||
Is there any actual evidence of this outside of this one company's AI-generated article?
jared_stewart 18 hours ago|||
There's been ample evidence of this, many different blogs, notification emails etc.

This thread duplicates the first observations of this which showed up here yesterday at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50404161

My mail provider, MXroute, sent me a notification of the issue early yesterday. There is commentary from various DMARC providers (Suped and PowerDMARC). This is a real thing.

It does not matter which host you are using, this has nothing to do with the hosting provider. It has everything to do with having your domain correctly set up on DNS so that anybody receiving mail will know how to authenticate it. Microsoft has apparently advanced a policy that if you don't even try you don't get to send.

IMO this is the right call, I've seen plenty of spoofing attacks where the attacker took advantage of nonexistent policy on non-sending domains. You might think that if you don't have an MX record the domain can't be used to send mail, that is wrong. The MX record only tells others where to send your mail, it says nothing about whether the domain can send mail itself.

majorchord 17 hours ago||
Ample evidence that the policy now extends to low-volume senders? Could you provide even one example?
hedgehog 9 hours ago||
There seem to be some just in these comments, including me, so yes.
Tomte 19 hours ago|||
I got a bounce on a mail from my personal Fastmail account (with my own domain) the day before yesterday.

I had SPF/DKIM set up, just not DMARC. Did that yesterday and don‘t see the point. My policy is "none".

jared_stewart 18 hours ago||
The point is to have a DMARC record, setting it to none doesn't really do much of anything for you though. If you really wanted to take advantage of it you will need a DMARC monitoring solution - the market seems to typically price these around $10/month for small-ish domains (though there are a lot of caveats). I'm trying to build a reasonable free option that maybe isn't enough to get a domain to a reject policy, but should be enough for you to maintain a reject policy.

The truth is that there are amply "non-sending" domains out there which ignore DMARC and allow abuse. Stopping the assumption of no policy mean p=none prevents this abuse from persisting.

cowlevel 10 hours ago||
How does having a record with no policy make the internet safer?
mapontosevenths 16 hours ago||
Email was invented in 1965. It needs to be replaced with something that doesn't try to bolt security on as a lazy afterthought 30-40 years later.
cowlevel 10 hours ago||
We have everything we need to define email 2.0 with mandatory security, the problem is all the older installations that support 1.0 that everyone still expects to talk to.

New protocols only solved this by cutting compatibility. Signal can be E2EE because you can't send a message to an email address with it. Email can also be E2EE, but how do you know the recipient supports it?

mapontosevenths 2 hours ago||
It shouldn't BE backwards compatible. That's the Microsoft problem. They can't innovate because they have 40 years of legacy holding them back. Email might be the only situation that's worse. I don't want another new layer over the top like DMARC, and I don't want to try to "fix it." It can't be fixed, it's just a bad design.

I want something fundamentally new that doesn't stink of 70's era pre-security thinking.

A group of heavy hitters needs to just form a working group and propose Email 2.0. As long as it's supported by the biggest vendors and companies and they don't go all "IPv6: It's better because it's complicated!" on it people will sign up because it will be able to offer MUCH more in terms of features, usability, security, ease of hosting, etc.

patatero 10 hours ago|||
What about Matrix?
mapontosevenths 2 hours ago||
I like Matrix, but I'm not sure it's really a direct email replacement. I think it could become one with sufficient work, but it's not there right now.
isaachinman 15 hours ago||
Sorry to break it to you, but email isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
jonah 18 hours ago||
I had an email kicked back to me from Hotmail this past week complaining about missing DMARC. I fixed that and subsequent messages went through fine.
alrtd82 12 hours ago||
Rejecting emails from some domains. Why would emails “to” these domains also bounce back?
27bstroke6 20 hours ago||
I’ve been anticipating something like this for a while; the number of folks who don’t have their email-related DNS settings in order is remarkably high.
KwanEsq 3 hours ago|
And have Microsoft started checking DMARC correctly yet?

We discovered when we set up a third-party to send via Amazon SES with one of our domains at the start of 2025 that Microsoft didn't correctly check DKIM alignment, and would incorrectly fail valid emails. The issue, so far as I could tell at the time, was that if an email had multiple (in our case 2) DKIM signatures, Microsoft's handling seemed to be non-deterministic, sometimes checking one signature, sometimes the other, and sometimes both. Of course, those times when it only checked one signature and that wasn't the one for the sending domain, it would then fail the alignment check, even though there was a perfectly valid and aligned signature right there it had just decided to ignore.

I raised it with Microsoft support at the time, but they were unsurprisingly useless, I think the most constructive thing they said was "just add the Amazon SES IPs to your SPF record", which, uh, no.

In the end, IIRC, we ended up setting up the third party to sign into a 365 email account on our domain we created for them so they could send through MS's infrastructure and avoid all that. So no idea what their DMARC checking is like these days, but I'd assume the same, if not worse.

More comments...