On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:25:06 PM EST Dotzero wrote: > Someone pointed to Sender-ID as an example experiment. A very poor example > to choose. It was broken from the start. As an aside, I kept sending email > to the folks at Microsoft using @Microsoft.com email addresses by using > "Sender" to game PRA to get a neutral". Furthermore, it dragooned senders > who had no intention of participating in the experiment by reusing their > published SPF records in a manner they did not intend them to be used. I > also point out how long it took to put a stake in the heart of Sender-ID. > And yet even today we can find Sender-ID records littering the Internet and > even a few places doing Sender-ID checks. For some definition of "We", we > are good at additions and modifications but poor at deletes.
That was me. I agree it was a horrible idea. The point wasn't that Sender ID was great, it wasn't. The point was that the AIB considered it reasonable as an experiment. I think this is far less risky than that was. I was trying to respond to the idea what the IETF doesn't support experiments where there are technical concerns about the nature of the technology. The AIB's position, as I read it, was that such experiments are fine and if the IESG has concerns, they should add a note to document. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
