On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:39 PM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > At the risk of offending some, politics was the elephant in the room on Sender-ID and SPF both ending up being designated as experimental. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
