I see the competing "answers" breaking down differently: - Mailing list implementation/practice must change to support From-header alignment - Never publish a p=reject policy for a domain with human (non-automated) senders
"Whitelist known-good MLs" seems to me to be an effective way to eliminate the use of MLs entirely, since the number of lists, and of entities who must whitelist them, gets rather large rather quickly. In reaction to "MLs must change," I've seen, "Sure, I'll change -- to block all memberships/posts from addresses with p=reject policies." I've never heard DMARC proposed as a spam solution, only as a phishing solution. In that respect I think it's been very successful. On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Pierre-Alain Dupont <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi folks, > After reading a few articles like > http://thehackernews.com/2014/04/yahoos-new-dmarc-policy-destroys-every.html, > I came to wonder as to why a soon-to-be standardized project came to on > purpose break a huge part of the reality of today's emails. > > From what I can read on this ML, the subject of forwarders/ML has been > discussed here numerous times, and basically, the answer is somehow either > of: > > - We do not care, forwarding shouldn't exist anyway. > - Well, this is out of the scope of DMARC. > - Maybe you could white-list the more prominent ones or implement a > way to do it automatically. > > Neither of those answers is really acceptable. The only credible one is > the third (that, or this protocol is not meant to be really used and is a > purely academic work). > > Basically, it appears to me as if you are designing a protocol that would > be, on purpose, only accessible to big firms that can have the manpower to > do such a white-listing and/or do not really about their captive users. > Many people appear to believe that it is acceptable to lose 2% legitimate > emails... Well, it is not. > Moreover, it will introduce a bias toward ML providers that are widely > white-listed and others, that can in fact no longer appear as they are > already blocked. Again, I see a pattern of saying "emailing would be better > if there were only a few providers". > > I am really wondering as to what is your aim here. Reducing spam is a > great goal, but not by sacrificing so much. > > I know there has been discussion as to whether this should be an IETF WG. > Well, the answer is no. Definitely no. After all, the mission of the IETF > is to make the Internet work better, and purposely excluding a section of > the Internet is not a way to do it. > > Regards, > PA.Dupont > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
