"Most people with a personal mail account aren't on any mailing lists."
I AM on several, and the ONLY reason I am here is to try and figure out why so many people like myself have been COMPLETELY 'disrespected' with these 'policies.' While I might be in support of working on the spam/fraud issue, my ''Yahoo spam'' has actually INCREASED at least 5 fold since this 'improvement' began, not to mention the pain of being forced to jump from email provider to email provider every few days 're-subscribing' to lists which I had previously been on for years. Not attacking you Brandon, just using your comment as a jumping off point. I am a very frustrated user, not a programmer. Gene > -------------------------------------------- > On Fri, 5/30/14, Brandon Long <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Subject: Re: > [dmarc-ietf] Comportment on this list > To: > "Vlatko Salaj" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, May 30, 2014, 4:31 AM > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at > 1:02 AM, Vlatko Salaj <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Thus, I am reminding all of you > of your > obligation to keep > > > > this discussion professional, on topic, respectful, and > friendly. > > > > > > > i do not see how this is at all possible, when > a > pretty developed > > solution is ridiculed as a Klingon-speech, not > by only few > of > > participants, but the very same administrator > of this > mailing list. > > > > let's > call it irony. > > > > > > for what it's worth, both Hector's and > Douglas' > solutions to, more > > than obvious DMARC problem, > work fine for solving issues > with > > case-scenarios i have in my > environment. > > > > thanks for working on those, > guys. yes, you do need much > wider > > support, if this is gonna > take off, and i hope some of the > more > > influential speakers here > will provide it [looking to ML > > developers]. > > > > > > in the end, imo, DMARC > policy model, if not bug-fixed, which > > seems > > all too much > probable as whole DMARC establishment > > doesn't care, > > will > justdie off and become irrelevant, fading with smoke > of > > > false-positivesit generates, as no sane service will > respect > > > "reject" policy whose legitimacy is fluid, > saving > themselves from > > wrath of both end-senders and > end-receivers. > > > > and world will choose to > keep email functional as it is, > instead > of > > breaking it with some > ill-developed rigid standard > forinternet > of > > parallel universe. > > I think many of the folks on > this > list don't use email the way that > the vast majority of > people do. > Most people > with a personal > mail account aren't on any mailing > > lists. Even if they are, its likely from a major > provider > which is also a DMARC user, and so > the MLMs will change to > support DMARC. > > What would be more likely > to happen, would be that there would be two > semi-compatible > but actually separate email > systems, one which moves more > and more to > strong authentication and other policies, and > one which attempts to remain the wild west. > These systems > would sometimes interact, > but that interaction would likely > result in > messages going to spam folders or being rejected > outright some percentage of the time. > > If hotmail/gmail were to > go > to p=REJECT, is a boycott still > possible? vzw/mail.ru/sina/me.com/163.com/docomo/etc? > > Brandon > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
