On Monday, February 15, 2016 07:27:21 AM Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: > Scott Kitterman wrote: > > It would be nice if we didn't design standards that only worked at a > > certain scale. "You must be this tall to ride" worries me. > > There's nothing about ARC that is scale-specific, except for the obvious > observation that there's a batteries-not-included problem, so the analysis > work required to make good use of it as a receiver is likely to be > infeasible for smaller receivers meaning that:
Yes. Exactly it. > - initially only larger receivers will do it, and > - if it works then, over time, vendors/developers will embed slow-moving > pieces in products and/or reputation data providers will add faster moving > pieces to their services. > > This is just a diffusion process, not an exclusion of smaller players. > Indeed, it would almost appear that you'd be happier if the big guys had > excluded smaller players from this initiative... Until maybe someday the results of the analysis to use ARC are somehow available, they have. The use of an open standard (which I am in favor of and this is good), doesn't materially change that. If I can write code to implement a standard, but don't have the necessary inputs to use it, it's not particularly of use. > I'd also point out that we spent most of a decade (2003 - 2011) wandering in > a highly-inclusive -all/o=-/discardable wilderness. It took the world's > most-heavily-phished organisation working directly with one of the big guys > in private to get any purchase on the problem, and their subsequent sharing > of it (DMARC) to bring about progress more broadly. It would appear that > ARC is on a similar path to improving the situation for largest unresolved > piece of the problem (supporting forwarding). This does suggest a general > difficulty in using a consensus-driven process to devise solutions, rather > than merely refine/standardise/evolve them, however this does not seem like > a reason for concern, it may simply indicate that we've gotten as far as we > can get at present with such processes. The important test when deciding > whether to cooperate would appear to be whether the particular solution > unduly benefits the big guys compared to other viable solutions that are > already known about. ! If there are none, then cooperating on ARC would > appear to be a no-brainer. Personally, I try to consider putting my time where either I'll benefit or I think the global Internet will benefit. > > Solving the mailing list 'problem' in a way that requires me to switch to > > gmail (or some other large scale provider) to get my list mail delivered > > is worse than no solution at all for me. > > Obviously. This is not being proposed, see the comments about about > vendors/developers and reputation data providers. It's not being proposed, but I expect it'll be the effect. 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)
