Your bar is too unrealistically high for typical IETF project work that is still in the experimental stages. You should be thankful, we didn't apply this bar to the SPF experiment.
-- Hector Santos http://www.santronics.com > On May 9, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On May 9, 2015 5:00:24 AM EDT, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Murray S. Kucherawy writes: >> >>> Agreed again. And as Terry has said and I think we can infer about >>> other large operators, it's incorrect to assume (and plain wrong to >>> assert) that this is an easy problem for them to solve in a >>> reliable way. >> >> Please define "reliable." I gather you all think that missing some >> mailing lists is a bigger problem than missing all of them, but for >> the life of me, I cannot see why. > > How many solutions do you think operators will be willing to implement? As I > indicated in my utility assessment framework, I think we get a maximum of one > solution that requires cooperative implementations in multiple parts of the > originator/mediator/receiver trilogy. Given that, it had better be reasonably > comprehensive. > > Scott K > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
