On Wednesday, April 09, 2014 15:59:27 Douglas Otis wrote: > On Apr 9, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Al Iverson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Barney Wolff <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Since I brought up SRS, may I point out that the SRS conversion > >> includes a timestamp? So list operators need not, in fact, volunteer > >> in perpetuity. And yes, that means that I can't click reply a year > >> later and expect it to work. I can live with that. > >> > >> What's the alternative - being unable to reply at all? > > > > The alternative that I have personally implemented simply moves the > > poster's email address to the reply-to header. > > > > I've explained what I've done here: > > http://www.spamresource.com/2014/04/run-email-discussion-list-heres-how-to > > .html > Another approach that could have been used if IESG had not thwarted > deployment by demanding unique DKIM signatures in conjunction with > third-party signature exceptions. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6541 > > The industry could have constructed a hash list of domains offering well > administered third-party services. Instead, there is a growing list of > poorly considered DMARC policy assertions causing a growing placement of > mail in to spam folders. > > The IESG had no problem with SPF's potentially hundreds of DNS queries that > might be made against otherwise uninvolved domains, in contrast to a single > a ATPS query made to the authoritative domain. :^(
Doug, I know you have a hard time restraining yourself from making up stuff about SPF. While I've no opinion about ATPS, hundreds of DNS queries due to SPF is nonsense. Scott K _______________________________________________ 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)
