On Saturday, April 25, 2015 4:29 PM [GMT+1=CET], Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> J. Gomez writes: > > > What costs are Mediators currently taking to improve > > validation/authentication of the email system as a whole? > > Isn't it obvious that Mediators bear all of the burden that *both* > ends do? Of course, we perform both roles on each message. We verify > signatures and filter messages on the way in, which potentially could > reduce costs system-wide due to the multiplier effect of mailing lists > (except of course nobody trusts us to do it well). We sign the > version of the message that we send out. (These are functions of the > MTA, of course, and we can't do a better or worse job than any > Originator or Recipient. Except that to some extent Mediators may > have information about the Originator that Recipient systems don't, > which may improve filtering.) > > What else do you propose that we do? Well, if you ask... Mediators could take ownership of the Header-From whenever their involvement results in the Originator's DKIM signature being invalidated. Or some other change to their "entrenched" traditional behavior, like stop adding subject tags and body footers and being content with using some List-ID header to identify themselves, etc. Everyone (Originators and Receivers) is changing their email usage patterns/processes in order to take email to the next level (in reality, just to keep it a viable communication option in an increasingly hostile Internet environment), but Mediators seem totally unwilling to change their email usage patterns/processes. Email is changing. We all have to change to accomodate the fact that email is changing. Mediators don't seem willing to change at all. What I see is that email is about to evolve to the next level, and Mediators are at risk of being left behind if they refuse to change to accomodate the fact that email is changing. Regards, J.Gomez _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
