On Monday, June 9, 2014 3:28 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <[email protected]> wrote:
> FP rates ranging from .17% to .3% so, in 1 000 000 000 of notifications, 1 700 000 to 3 000 000 is lost. and u don't consider that a problem? let imagine u have 333 333 customers. and u get a security breach. and u decide to send instant security notice to customers by email asap. and about 1000 customers possibly doesn't receive any such notice, and about 560 of them doesn't get one for sure. and one of those 560 happens to be a millionaire with a forwarding email account which serves his iphone. well, if i were a bank, i would consider that a bad situation. >> exactly the reason behind DMARC being an independent document on IETF. > I think all who were "in the room" would agree that > the failure to do so was not a function of false positive rates. actually, my point was that DMARC excludes too much of legitimate email, not just false-positives. but i guess it depends how u define too much. not that it matters anyway. i'm somewhat sure any IETF DMARC work would include 3rd party support, so imo, we have passed the point of no return, and we r working to bring false positives down. -- Vlatko Salaj aka goodone http://goodone.tk _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
