On 4/8/2014 11:58 AM, Murray Kucherawy wrote:
On 4/8/14 7:23 AM, "Dave Crocker" <[email protected]> wrote:
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?
More the latter than anything else. What's been demonstrated is that
the current approach is traumatic. I like drama, but not trauma.
The reticence of the broader mailing list community to participate in
coordinated, incremental standards efforts does not encourage one to try
to reduce the trauma, but the damage done to end users should.
Given that we've known about the mailing list issue for DMARC, SPF and
DKIM for a very long time, I think it unlikely that anyone is suddenly
going to come up with a perfect and painless "solution".
However we haven't tried very hard to develop a carefully orchestrated
approach that considers tradeoffs and minimizes end user pain.
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)
