On 04/16/2015 08:34 PM, John R Levine wrote:
The most tedious and unhelpful discussions here have implicitly (or
perhaps explicitly) assumed that receiver nontechnical costs don't
matter, then repeatedly pointed out the true but useless fact that
there are single party mediator changes with trivial technical costs.
Useless because it presumes the non-technical costs of those changes are
high?
At least, we need to look at what non-technical costs they push onto
other parties.
Some changes have insignificant non-techincal costs and are not
controversial, e.g., adding a List-ID header for the benefit of
recipients who know how to use it. Changes that seem similar may have
quite different costs, e.g., adding a List-ID and removing subject
tags, forcing recipients to change the way they sort and organize
their incoming messages.
I (think I) understand what you mean and I sympathize with your
reasoning. But how are we supposed to compare non-technical costs with
technical costs? And what would be the formula to make a fair comparison
between Technical/Non-technical Costs for Big/Small
Originators/Mediators/Receivers? The concept of technical vs
non-technical cost at least doubles the six combinations, mentioned by
Scott.
/rolf
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
