Hi, Doug,
On 05/22/2014 11:56 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
[...]
This number of 30K has been first mentioned by Yahoo! and after that
it has been mentioned a couple of times by various people, but I have
yet to see any proof that this figure is correct. Apart from this,
quoting your own mail, you mention "[...] tens of thousands of
legitimate services that might be sending on behalf of their client
[...]". Although I think TPA may have its use for specific
author/sender combinations [1], it definitely is not the answer to
the current problems, introduced by Yahoo! and AOL, when they
activated 'p=reject'. It simply will not scale enough and it remains
to be seen that the too-big-to-ignore ESPs will spend time and money
on the use of TPA, as they have their own mailing-list-like fora,
which provide them revenues. Not to mention the privacy aspects of TPA...
Dear Rolf,
I strongly disagree with the assumption TPA does not scale to levels
needed by AOL or Yahoo. Not having TPA declare the exceptions needed,
both receiving and then offering feedback will likely to involve
greater levels of network resources. TPA is structured to ensure it
can be supported by a single DNS transaction. This allows for
effective caching so perhaps only one out of 10 queries sees an
authoritative response. Can that be said for any other email protocol?
I'm not talking about that type of scaling. What I mean is, that it will
take a massive amount of work to gather the right information about who
is subscribed where to what list, to update this information on a
continuous basis and to get this (changing information) in DNS. But
maybe I misunderstand what will be in the draft, I'd better wait for the
draft.
/rolf
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
