On 4/8/14 7:23 AM, "Dave Crocker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/8/2014 9:13 AM, Steve Atkins wrote: >> It's easy to fix mailing lists without that loss of functionality. >> >> Block any attempt to post to a mailing list from a domain that >> publishes strict DMARC. That doesn't affect functionality for >> legitimate users and it complies with the domain owners >> wishes (however misguided). > >That's clever, and oddly constructive. It informs the user of the issue >at exactly the right time: when the subscription is being attempted and >the user is focused on the possibility of the subscription having >problems. Much better than indirect and obscure notification later, >after posting a message. This was suggested some years ago, when we did RFC6377. > >On the other hand, this has the classic problem of requiring mailing >lists to change. That is, this approach does not help anyone currently >and won't help much for a very long time, if ever. > That's true. I'm having some trouble with the notion that MLMs need to be immune from change because they somehow have that status. You're right that this is a paradigm change. Just to clarify, are you saying those should be off the table outright, or merely that the community really really needs to understand the implications? -MSK _______________________________________________ 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)
