Was this something that was known for a while that would change? Or is it something that was thrown upon the DNS world without much notice?
It's been planned for a while but unfortunately hasn't received much attention. I only just recently found out myself. The underlying improvements have been around since 1999; what's being dropped (finally) are workarounds that permit backwards compatibility with the pre-1999 protocol. The workarounds cause a number of issues, and permitting pre-1999 DNS at all can be dangerous, so this is long overdue. The deadline itself, though, is relatively new (~1 year, I believe, but don't quote me on that).
Dont worry about the "slow", thats usually resolving multiple dns servers. Just check the outputs as each dns server is interrogated during the test.
In my tests, when the site indicates slow, post-Flag Day-style lookups increased by upwards of 3 seconds. If it says "slow", you should be concerned.
I think if this DNS change was going to be so destructive it would be front page news and even your grandmother would have heard about it.
Based on my testing and understanding of the intended changes, it seems as though it will be destructive if people aren't prepared. I wouldn't expect the internet to collapse, but there are probably going to be sporadic outages of various services on Feb 1. Because word hasn't really spread, it's going to take big companies time to figure out what's wrong and why it's not affecting some customers.
This reminds me of when SPF/DKIM was going to break the internet email system if you didnt upgrade. Its been in use for years now and most servers still do not use either.
Anyone who's tried to automatically forward emails from NamePros without a proper DKIM and/or ARC implementation can attest that lack of DKIM-compatibility does, in fact, break stuff. We don't see it too often, but it does happen from time to time.
Absolutely all major email providers are using SPF/DKIM/DMARC.
Correct--at least, all the reputable ones. Who knows what Yahoo does. They're still using spam filtering tech from the 90's.
Which means it does NOT break anything if you do not have them. That was the point.
I'm not going to get into semantics. Lacking SPF/DKIM on your end does not break anything talking to a SPF/DKIM enabled server.
Well... in theory, yes, but in practice, deliverability rates drop significantly. This may not be relevant for an individual, but for an organization like NamePros that sends hundreds of thousands of emails per month, one additional percentage point of bounces means thousands of dropped emails. Basically, by implementing DKIM + SPF + DMARC on our end, we're providing the recipients with additional assurance that the emails came from us, which can cut down on certain kinds of rejections. Many forms of unwanted email either aren't able or don't bother to make these assurances. We've seen near-100% deliverability since implementing DMARC. If we were to exclude Yahoo, it'd probably be just a handful of emails shy of 100%.
These email mechanisms were designed for Name/Brand protection.
If you don't need them - this is another story and your own choice.
They can be used for that, but they're actually primarily to prevent phishing. For NamePros, it's not about our brand; it's about protecting our users from fraud and related issues. Many other organizations are in a similar boat, and some industries mandate the usage of DMARC. Spear phishing is a big issue. I always use DKIM + SPF + DMARC, even for my personal domains. It's quick, easy, and effective.
