Like the DMARC FAQ? Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question.
On Jul 7, 2012, at 11:05 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Michael (and FB crew), > > I acknowledge that due diligence was done for the proof of concept 6 months > ago, and a more open version of due diligence is being done now with the > draft and an open internet community. > > I'm an outsider so I'll ask these simple questions: > > - Are 3rd parties (aka those not privy to your backdoors white board > sessions) aware of what you have "high confidence" in, and the areas you seek > assistance? > > - Are these needs made clear in a place other than "the archives" > > - Is it unexpected that a ADMDs will go through the same fear, uncertainty, > and doubt that (according to your message) took "months" to hash out? > > Michael, what you see as an insult is just someone who is frustrated by a > lack of transparency, and needs more information. If that information isn't > in the draft, and isn't appropriate for such a document, perhaps a Wiki page > should be created to address these historical concerns. > > What are your (FB.com et al) thoughts on creating a wiki page for historical > and upcoming edits to the draft? > > (note I don't want to interfere with the ietf notes well process) > > > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Adkins <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected]: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 01:55:18 > To: Alan Maitland<[email protected]>; > [email protected]<[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Clarification needed; > Does p=none override -all and ADSP in all cases? > >> >> >> >> "We are part of bigger infrastructures than you ever will be and have >> also thought long and hard about all this over a Kirk burger" is just >> probably not going to provide many folks with the warm fuzzies they want >> to have in their justifying making a choice to move forward with DMARC. >> > > I feel kind of insulted by this. There's a big difference between the > areas of the spec that we know need broader consensus and the areas of the > spec that we feel like we flushed out thoroughly. Identifying whether a > given topic falls into one of those categories or the other goes a long > way in terms of setting expectations around how open the working group > will be to discussing it. We involved several very large financial > institutions and a technical financial industry organization in our work > to make sure their concerns were addressed. Speculating about concerns > they may or may not have is not a constructive use of time as we already > devoted several months to it. > > If you don't see the value of large scale data and experimentation, or the > several years we devoted to it, or more than a year's experience running > in it production at large scale, fine. The reporting component exists so > that you can collect the data and make an educated decision for yourself > as to whether you should use it or not. If you don't actually have a > spoofing problem, and you don't see any value in the reports, then DMARC > has nothing to offer you. No one is interested in trying to convince > anyone to use DMARC who doesn't actually have the problem it tries to > solve. Either you justify it yourself with the data provided, or you > don't. > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss > > NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms > (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss > > NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms > (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
