On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld < [email protected]> wrote:
> > I agree it (=subscription time) might be the right moment, but it won't > solve problems like this one introduced by Yahoo. It will only apply to new > subscribers, not to the currently subscribed addresses. > > It could also be done at submission time. > > 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. >> > > As has been stated before, MLM's are not the only problem. In general, the > IETF has always been reluctant to standardize new protocols that would > break the existing Internet ecosystem. This was not without a reason. Certainly, but they are the most oft-cited example of a concern. > > 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? >> > > Can you describe what you mean with 'community'? Do you mean with that: > senders (like Yahoo!) publishing a DMARC p=reject policy? Or do you mean: > all admins who have spent their valuable time today to prevent collateral > damage caused by this move of Yahoo!? > I mean the latter. -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)
