On 05/30/2014 11:28 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > > > > DMARC change is even more off the table than MLM software change > > > (which does, as you suggest, evolve over time). > > > > Are there changes people want to make? > > I am of the opinion that the technical DMARC protocols (including > "p=reject") are fine. ... I'm sure that the > probability of technical bugs in the protocols remaining is not zero, > but I imagine they'll be fixed as discovered.
Yes, technical bug probability aside, it works well and at scale, and has for more than two years. Speaking strictly for myself, I expected DMARC and/or other specs and practices to evolve such that together they would support more use cases overall. The need to address those areas was well understood and was commented on publicly for quite a while, even if it wasn't adequately documented in the spec. Unfortunately previous activity to establish an IETF working group - where I had thought that evolution would happen - failed. The upshot was that the expected development didn't happen, and DMARC has been effectively static. In the meantime the large scale abuse of email continued to morph, to the point where DMARC was seen as the least harmful option to address a pernicious trend. I would like to see an IETF working group formed, so that we maintain the use cases where DMARC is currently effective and support additional use cases where it currently isn't. > I would like the logical consequences of > unilateral publication of "p=reject" without prior arrangement with > *all* possible relays spelled out. I agree that a solid list of known consequences would be good. And I'm sure it will grow beyond what any of us expect... --Steve. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
