Vlatko I suggest you remove the vitriol from your responses. Stating the messages that Vic referred to are unimportant is just such an example. Those messages are ones that individuals have opted-in to receive and are important to them. They may also be required as a matter of business, be they transaction notifications, fraud alerts and the like. I'm sure that individuals receiving those messages are better served with the actions to protect the email domain that Vic had undertaken.
Like many others who have successfully deployed DMARC, they've done so with the intent of maintaining the viability and integrity of the channel for their constituents. My understanding (and general experience) is that this list is to move forward on a constructive path. Email, as you well know has evolved in ways that we never envisioned when the underlying protocols were developed. However, the inherent lack of security has allowed for behaviors that have both positive and unfortunately increasingly negative uses and effects. Nowadays the vast majority of known major beaches originated with a malicious email. Like many protective solutions, both virtual and physical, there are often side effects. Take for example the automobile seat belt. One may find that it irritates the shoulder on long rides, but I for one accept that for the protection it provides. Like the seat belt, I can choose not to use DMARC, but I do so at my own peril. -----Original Message----- From: Vlatko Salaj [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 05:21 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Talamo, Victor Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] confusing 3rd party support so it remains out On Friday, June 6, 2014 10:56 PM, "Talamo, Victor" <[email protected]> wrote: > With that said if you check the DMARC records for these domains today, > the vast majority of these domains are DMARC REJECT comprising billions > of emails. billions of notification email. that barely anyone reads. and that nobody cares if gets lost. i can only hope to see real data on number of DMARC false-positives in that billions of notification email, but i'm sure that would just completely crash any trust in DMARC, so we will never see it. exactly the reason behind DMARC being an independent document on IETF. not that i care anymore. it's a waste of my time, obviously. 'nuff said. -- Vlatko Salaj aka goodone http://goodone.tk _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
