More or less what I was going to point out -- November 11th is about remembering those who've served their country in war.

Never mind; I didn't realize you were a troll.

Feel free to cite anything a GUI file manager can do that a CLI can't do better, besides thumbnailing.

That final paragraph is precisely the debate every rational pro-life person I know wishes would happen, and yet it gets stiffled continually by so-called "women's rights" which are supposedly being trampled.

Once upon a time, women weren't allowed to vote, and letting them vote would've trampled "men's rights" ...
Once upon a time, slaves were forced to labour in fields for no pay, and allowing them fair treatment would have trampled on "owners' rights" ...

Having a tough conversation about where a woman's rights truly end and where the unborn child's begin isn't happening and it should. We may decide as a culture that children have no rights to live until they're 2 years old; we may instead decide that 5 months after conception is a viable human life that deserves recognition. Unfortunately this discussion is simply being stifled.

Therefore as I said, it works as advertised. Mailing lists should never have been forging from addresses in the first place and DMARC and SPF help prevent that source of spam for many people.

Sometimes breaking things is the correct behaviour.

I could cite thousands of examples of religious people who are not delusional and you'd claim they were just because they're religious. That makes you closed-minded and bigotted. Just because some *people* have issues or are morons doesn't mean what they stand for should be painted in that light. What they stand for should be judged on its own merits, and the person on their own.

Painting all religious people with the "delusional" brush as you did is far too broad a statement to be properly rational.

I don't know what your point is at all.

A) I send my own mail, I sign it all using DKIM and advertise a DMARC record that says so.
B) I have a third party I trust sending mail as me, I send them a key to sign mail with and add them to the SPF senders list and advertise a DMARC record saying so.
C) I have a third party relay messages through my own server; A) applies and works fine.
D) I use a third party relay myself, I sign the messages before going out and publish an SPF record saying they are trusted and a DMARC record saying these are true.
E) I don't sign all my mail, I may or may not send from trusted hosts; I publish a DMARC record saying not to block unknown sender IPs and unsigned messages.

In all cases, DMARC helps tell the recipient what to expect. The fact that your outbound server is blocked by a stupid IP-level blacklist based on your ISP has *nothing* to do with SPF, DMARC or DKIM.

I don't recommend hiring the OP here; not only do they not realize its DMARC, but they don't seem to realize what DMARC and DKIM actually accomplish.

Luckily there are easy-to-read summaries like this one: https://support.google.com/a/a...

That blocking of ISP ranges is a real problem -- many ISPs offer business dedicated IP ranges suitable for running services like E-mail off of but are incorrectly marked as home network addresses by various idiots.

DKIM does NOT mean that a message isn't spam, it means that Yahoo really sent it.

DKIM is fixing a completely different problem; random spammers sending out E-mail from their own servers claiming to be from Yahoo (or another domain).

I've had this happen to domains I administer and its incredibly annoying, especially when clients get E-mail claiming to be from me. DKIM fixes this problem.

You obviously haven't experienced spam being sent out to people claiming to be from your domain yet -- you'll implement DKIM and SPF that week ...

I use DKIM and SPF on all domains I administer with appropriate settings on each and then advertise DMARC records stating that SPF and DKIM should be expected on all messages. This means anyone attempting to send E-mail as one of my clients to a server using DMARC will fail. I see no down side either.

Sounds like being atheistic suddenly means being a closed-minded bigot ...

That's a strange requirement. What if a pro-life person said they're against killing innocent people? Wouldn't that be good enough for a morally valid judgement?

Obviously you know nothing of the power of CLIs. No GUI file manager comes close to the power of bash, find and related tools.

Microsoft has been promising such features for years (and has even improved their own CLI for obvious reasons -- its very useful).

Its not *my* GUI, its any GUI.