On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Vlatko Salaj <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> i would rather say it's a case of "history repeating". how many > >> email policy protocols were developed in last 10y? a bunch of them. > >> all of them failed. all of them "historic" now. > > Which ones, other than ADSP? > > i'm not a search engine. but one could even argue that SPF, Sender-ID > and bunch of DKIM addons were exactly in that group. > None of them are Historic. SPF was just upgraded to Proposed Standard, and DKIM is a full standard; both are in pretty heavy use. Sender-ID is probably a failed experiment at this point though. ADSP is the only one I can think of. I'm happy to be enlightened. You'll have to suggest some search terms, because I couldn't find any other than the ones we've already listed here, except maybe VBR. > > I think the more likely explanation is that the proposals on the table > > are much too risky and costly given the benefits. > > i see no risks with me publishing a DMARC records saying exactly this: > do DMARC alignment against yahoo domain too. > > and i'm sure u can't find any, other than breaching yahoo itself, > my account, or my dns records, all of which isn't DMARC's field of > protection anyway. > > be free to make an example, i would really like to see what additional > risks and costs u r mentioning. if possible, ofc. > I did provide some examples of the cost of the current third-party systems in my previous message (the one to which you are replying). > > The status of the current document has nothing at all to do with the > quality > > of what's in it, but rather the procedural path it's taking toward > > publication. > > anyone can trust whatever they like. but considering u work for ur DMARC > bosses as a document shepard... i'll just consider u biased in evaluating > this. > Huh? I'm talking about IETF procedure. Who I work for or what I'm shepherding doesn't change that. > nobody interested to fix email would publish such a protocol as independent > RFC. more brains, better solutions, more contributions, better standard... > there have been many calls to make a working group. > I think you should probably go back and read some of the archives of this list from before you joined. There was an attempt to create a working group, and another attempt is probably appropriate. Nobody is specifically avoiding it; it's a matter of agreeing on a charter. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
