On 3/29/2013 2:17 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article <[email protected]> you write:
On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:03 PM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
PS: I'm ignoring the ridiculous suggestions that every mailing list in
the world should change their existing working code to circumvent
DMARC mistakes. We didn't do it for SPF/SRS, we didn't do it for
DKIM or ADSP, and we're certainly not going to do it now.
No one is making these ridiculous suggestions, but when they do, they'll be
sorry they did!
Glad to hear it. In that case, could someone please take them out of the FAQ?
http://www.dmarc.org/faq.html#s_3
Sorry, no. The faq entry you cite does not make the claim or give the
directive you cite. Please reread the question asked.
It is cast as a question from an operator who wants to play in the DMARC
sandbox. That's quite different from asserting a broad mandate for all
operators.
That is, it /does/ give guidance to mailing list operators that choose
to participate in DMARC.
It's difficult to tell what you think would be reasonable for this sort
of entry. Perhaps you think that there should be no entry (ignore the
problem) or simply cite the problem (give no guidance for improving
behavior in the presence of re-posting mediation)? Or... what?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
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)
