Murray's response is the key point. Large email providers like DMARC because it helps cut down on phishing (which results in fewer compromised accounts), user complaints (which reduces support calls) and is fairly straightforward to implement (which makes the codebase more maintainable). They realize, however, that there are some scenarios that DMARC breaks. However, unless that pain is greater than the magnitude of pain that it solves, they are unlikely to reverse their DMARC implementations.
However, I'm sure they'd be amenable to updating it to fix the scenarios that is does break. So, what are the options? There are hundreds of years of email experience on this list, I'm sure we can come up with something. -- Terry From: dmarc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 12:42 AM To: Kurt Roeckx Cc: Dave Crocker; [email protected]; Miles Fidelman Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC's purpose On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Kurt Roeckx <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > 2. The spec is clear about how it works and what the implications are. The > issue with mailing lists is well-documented. I don't agree with this. If you have any specific suggestions for how it can be improved, now would be a good time to make them. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
