On Wed 04/Dec/2019 08:42:09 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net > <mailto:d...@dcrocker.net>> wrote: > >>> * add text to the PSD draft making it clear that what it's describing is >>> an experiment whose outcome will be taken only as feedback to the >>> revision of the standard (i.e., this is not intended to be the final form >>> of anything), and it is not intended to be deployed outside of the >>> experiment's participants; >> >> Forgive me, but while everyone involved in this has extensive experience >> and is trying to solve a real and serious issue, this is an astonishingly >> naive view. > > I don't think it's based entirely on naivety. I think there's a healthy dose > of feeling that the experiment as it's currently designed couldn't possibly > scale to "the entire domain namespace" and/or "all servers on the Internet", > so > in that sense from where I sit there's a built in safeguard against this > becoming a permanent wart.
After installing the DKIM/DMARC filter that implements PSD, I can say that the impact is unnoticeable. I didn't carry out precise measurements, I just didn't notice any delay. Perhaps because I don't get so much mail from gov.uk, but I don't think I could reliably measure a positive delay even if I were a strict correspondent of Boris. > Rather, it's primed as a possibly useful data collection exercise. Kurt also talked about reporting some findings. I'm embarrassed, I have no idea what I, as a receiver, should report. What data should I, and other receivers collect? IMHO, the experiment should be conceived as having it run by as many receivers as possible, so as to have a noticeable effect on senders. They can collect aggregate reports and make a comparison. Best Ale -- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
