It was not dismissed, the onus is on you to get interest and implementation.
Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question. > On May 6, 2014, at 17:16, "J. Gomez" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Saturday, May 03, 2014 12:28 AM [GMT+1=CET], Terry Zink wrote: > >>>> if this maillist here would change i bet it would be more >>>> understandable on what not to do >> >>> The advice hasn't changed: don't set a DMARC policy other than >>> p=none on domains used by human users. We know that some large >>> domains have disregarded that advice, but it doesn't make it any >>> less correct. >> >> I understand this position because it's a position I take many times >> here at work. However, as has been pointed out to me, just because I >> am correct doesn't mean that I am right, nor that I don't have a >> problem to solve. >> >> Given that large email providers like Yahoo and AOL do publish >> p=reject records, how is the rest of the email community going to >> deal mailing lists and other legitimate cases that fail DMARC? It's >> not enough to say "Yahoo and AOL shouldn't be doing it." That ship >> has sailed. The question now is what can we do to improve user >> experience? Several answers have been proposed: >> >> 1. Do nothing and let domains that publish p=reject live with the >> consequences >> 2. Don't permit domains with p=reject onto mailing lists >> 3. Mailing lists should reformat the message to prevent DMARC failures >> 4. Email receivers should be selective about how they enforce >> p=reject - send it to Junk or even skip enforcing it from known good >> emailing lists >> 5. Extend DMARC so that it supports mailing lists >> 6. Something else? >> >> These each have their pros and cons but it seems to me that working >> to support p=reject with mailing lists is a net benefit to everyone. > > Hi, Terry. > > What do you think about this proposal to extend DMARC to account for the > failure case of DMARC with mailing lists: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc/current/msg00167.html > > The proposal was dismissed by the staunch defenders of DMARC's immutability, > but I would like to know your take on it, if you would be so kind to share it. > > The proposal was done long before YAHOO and AOL adopted p=reject. Then the > common wisdom was that the deployment of DMARC would happen step by step from > none to quarantine to reject even using percentages in the process. However, > now the brisk reality of the world happens to be different from what was then > theorized, so perhaps that proposal deserves a second chance to be > considered/discussed. > > Regards, > J. Gomez > > > _______________________________________________ > 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
