On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 14:11:36 Dave Crocker wrote: > On 5/28/2014 2:07 PM, Tim Draegen wrote: > >> > I have been in extensive correspondence with the people who develop and > >> > maintain the Mailman discussion list software, and can only find that > >> > suggestion gratuitously insulting.> > > John, you are very difficult to communicate with, maybe because you're > > easily insulted, even when there is no insult. I too have been in > > correspondence with mailing list developers, and also developers behind > > businesses that rely on email, and also a slew of decision makers... and > > they're all trying to understand how they can fix things without going > > backwards. > All these background technical discussions sound like they are fascinating. > > Given that this list is supposed to be for technical discussion of > matters relating to DMARC -- with an eye towards possible > standardization -- and given that specification of methods for > interworking with mailing lists is such an extremely salient issue, > perhaps folks could consider moving presentation and review of design > choices into this forum?
This may sound like a flip question, but it's a serious one: Since, as I understand it, DMARC will not be an IETF specification, what is the IETF work here? Is there a clear boundary between the independent submission's requirements and what the IETF should be doing? It feels like the demarcation (pun intended) is DMARC is immovably what's currently deployed by a number of large providers that invested in it and the IETF work is to clean up the side effects. Now that's not a very pretty way to put it, but I don't think it's completely wrong either. How do we define the scope of work for this list? Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
