On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, Rick van Rein wrote:
Thanks to John for reading the draft proposal.
Marking content in an MUA is a WKBI*. There is no reason to believe
that users would understand content marking or would make reasonable
decisions based on it.
Hmm. The idea was founded on the common reliance of yellow/green bars
to indicate website safety. I was not aware that it was considered
WKBI; is there a place where I can learn what others have (so
conclusively) said on the matter?
But web sites don't color parts of a page green and parts red. There
might be something in a SOUPS proceeding, and I know this came up multiple
times back when we were rejecting more complex canonicalizations. The
relevant question is more like, given that users do a bad job of using a
single bit of "this web site is dangerous", why is there any reason to
think they'd do even as well with more complex warnings.
It is clear that ARC addresses large mail providers, but it almost seems
like only those are on its mind: parsing ARC is complex, especially
because it involves taking charge over message in reputation
intermediate systems. When such intermediates check (for spam, say)
less accurately than the end systems on which they land, these
intermediates will be discredited and effectively pushed off the Internet.
You say that like it's a bad thing. If your mailing list is so poorly
configured that it gushes spam, I don't want its mail.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
