Been busy with other things but didn't want to leave Dave's comments unremarked.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 10:54 PM > To: MH Michael Hammer (5304); John Levine; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Hey, Yahoo, you just broke my church mailing > list > > > >> Dunno what newspapers you read, but the Wall Street Journal and New > >> York Times among others put the user's address on the From: line. > >> Again, that is not a bug. That is how e-mail is supposed to work. > >> > > > > That is an implementation choice John, not "That is how e-mail is > > supposed to work". > > Actually, Mike, it is very much how email is supposed to work, and has been > for roughly 30 years. > No Dave, that is ONE of the ways that email can be implemented for those sites. I changed how our websites send email in 2007 before DMARC was even a gleam in someone's eye and didn't have to change anything other than publishing a p=reject record in order to accommodate DMARC. Now I'll grant that I don't have the MLM issue because I don't have user accounts sending to MLMs, but the point was not about MLMs but was about newspaper and greeting card sites. To say " That is how e-mail is supposed to work." is dismissive and does not allow for the possibility that there are other ways that e-mail is (just) supposed to work. In that respect we are talking about business model and operational/implementation choices. > There has never been an Internet standards requirement for the author's > domain administrator and the author's email operator to have a close > operational linkage. > > Although such linkages have long been common, they have never been > required. > > What's taking place now is a move to make it a requirement. > I see one mailbox provider making a decision about its domains. John is advocating that people stop using Yahoo or that MLMs should kick @yahoo.com users off their lists. Other people are making other choices. I don't view it as a move to make it a requirement (does your comment mean you buy into a conspiracy theory like John appears to?). I view it as one operator responding to abuse in a manner they believe is ultimately beneficial - right, wrong or indifferent from anyone else's perspective. Now if other domains with lots of end users perceive that this type of change is beneficial then there will be a movement to implement this type of change. If other mailbox providers move to implement p=reject then kicking list participants from those domains off MLMs may result in some mighty small lists. Some list operators may consider that a good thing, others not so much. At the risk of offending some, Darwin may have been right. > This is a paradigm change, Mike. > We don't know if it is a paradigm change yet - the book on this hasn't been finished. It may turn out to be a fart in the winds of history. > > > Having open mail relays used to be considered acceptable. > > Correct. And it, too, was a paradigm change. But it had a very strong basis > and very broad-based understanding and support. > And in the early days of that paradigm change there were folks doing just as much ranting about the evil folk deciding they wouldn't accept mail from folks who ran open relays. There were also rants about conspiracies. And no, early on in the open relay paradigm shift there was not broad-based understanding and support. It took some time for that to develop. > It also didn't break mailing list participation. > Sure it did - for people who tried to send mail through hosts that were open relays to MLMs that were on hosts blocking hosts that were open relays. Are you really trying to assert that no end users were harmed in the process? Mike _______________________________________________ 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)
