On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:55 AM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Not so good, since there are lists that do't have list-id and spam > that does. > > There's a large class of approaches that either require registration, > the various third party signers, or would likely work better with it > like my double signing thing. But it's clear to me that if there were > an easy way to register lists globally, we would already have done it. > > Large providers have a pretty good idea of who's sending them list > mail, e.g. Google notes in in their DMARC reports, so they can use > their own list if they want. Small providers will have to do other > stuff, but ad hoc approaches like adding lists when users compiain is > probably OK. > > So I'd just note when something needs or would be aided by > registration but not waste time trying to invent a way to do it. > > My taking that run at it showed me that an example is necessary to illustrate the goal and the general idea of the mechanism, and potential problems with trivial solutions. We could try relegating it purely to prose, but even a concocted example would probably be useful. So the stuff you're talking about here would go in what I labeled as <List-Id anti-magic>, and the whole thing should read as "A naive implementation could do this, but it's easily defeated by X, Y, Z; you have to do something better that matches your requirements" or something like that. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
