On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:04:08 -0400, Joseph Humphreys <jhumphreys at salesforce.com> wrote:
> Again, I have not been proposing this as a solution for mailing lists. > It solves at least two other problems: third-party bounce handlers, > and using your own domain with some large mail providers like gmail. > In either case, the domain owner can use DMARC without requiring any > support from the sender. This is not theoretical -- we have customers > who are currently stalled on DMARC implementations and who could move > forward if this were included in the spec. u can easily guess my standing on this, from my previous messages. +1 > If you are willing to accept additional DNS lookups, you actually > could use this to alleviate the mailing list problem, just by adding > an include syntax for aligned domain lists. That would create a > mechanism for people to make public, curated MLM whitelists. I > hesitate to bring that up because I imagine some people won't like the > idea of more DNS lookups, and I don't want the entire idea to get shot > down by association. this seems promising, but i doubt it will have big support here. however, this could solve issues with mailing lists that do not want to adopt a DMARC-compatible way of doing things, which i absolutely support. DMARC should be adapted to account for our world, not the other way around. that said, and having examined Sender-ID spec better, all these issues could be solved just by having Sender-ID in DMARC. Sender-ID passes alignment where SPF fails, no matter what's DKIM status. so, we have two working solutions. do we have any will to actually solve the problem? or is status quo and finding excuses of higher priority? -- Vlatko Salaj aka goodone http://goodone.tk _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
