On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:56 PM, J. Gomez <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why is it better for DMARC to be adapted to indirect email flows, instead > of indirect email flows to be adapted to DMARC? > > What does provide more value to end users at large: indirect email flows > to be kept old-style, or the extra notch of trustworthiness that DMARC > alignment provides? > > How big is the volume of DMARC-problematic indirect email flows, compared > to the general volume of email which can readily benefit from DMARC? > I'm pretty sure volumes are not the problem as much as the painful side effects, most notably unsubscription of uninvolved users from mailing lists when someone protected by DMARC posts to the list. (See Section 5.2 of RFC6377, which describes the same problem in the context of ADSP. RFC7372 might help with this, if and when it ever gets widely implemented.) My own view is that we should pursue whichever of the two avenues is the lower-hanging fruit. The problem at the moment is that it's not at all clear to me which of the two that is. We have among us implementers of both MLM packages and DKIM/SPF packages and standards, so at least the right people are "in the room". There are, however, substantial barriers in both directions. We definitely have our work cut out for us. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
