On 4/16/15 3:40 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I think it would be better to await the results of the recently chartered > dbound working group. Whatever DMARC does should, in the end, align to that, > so it would be better not to have this group expend effort in that area for > now. Dear Scott,
This misses the point. There is precedence for DMARC using lists composed without an official basis yet essential to its operation. Why wait for dbound aimed at offering completely different results? As this WG considers special handling for domains that operate some type of third-party service, these same considerations become critical elements in achieving a network effect toward practical solutions safely restoring the role of Sender wholly ignored by DMARC. Achieving a network effect requires consensus on how to effectively deal with problems DMARC creates when handling third-party services and dealing with misleading assertions made in DMARC policy. Consensus should avoid endorsing modes of operation that detract from the social and civic benefits derived from an open exchange of email. The WG should strive to ensure an email notification scheme will not cripple other services in use for decades. Finding a balance likely means algorithmically categorizing either third-party domains or domains making misleading assertions. Regards, Douglas Otis _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
