On Friday, June 20, 2014 3:32 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> no DNS-based third party whitelisting scheme has ever gotten any traction. > I think this whole topic has turned into something we think those people > want or need, but they don't. i beg to disagree. DMARC is barely known to the world at large, and even less deployed by world at large. even my ISP doesn't know or care about it yet, yet alone all those poor, small, around-every-corner cPanel-based domains that populate internet and make it worthwhile our time. so, any conclusion whether DMARC needs 3rd party alignment support isn't something anyone can base on some concrete data, but merely pure common sense and logic. and i do not subscribe to common sense and logic saying we don't need it. this mailing list wouldn't have three proposals already, and these requests wouldn't go repeating every once in a while if there was zero need for it. and, to be blunt - cause that's just my style - both DKIM-D and CDKIM r, in a way, 3rd party alignment support proposals, even if of a different kind and much lesser support-degree. btw, the same goes for any "DNS ppl" argument. i am a "DNS ppl" for 15 small companies, and i am strongly for DNS TXT 3rd party DMARC alignment policy support. the same goes with the rest of the tl;dr arguments, cause i barely consider something true if its basic truth can't be put in a sentence or two, instead of a novel. -- Vlatko Salaj aka goodone http://goodone.tk _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
