On 7/26/2020 2:34 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 7/26/2020 11:29 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
Dave, for a number of years of practice, depending in the system or
service, users have been provided with trust-related decisions . Do
you need real examples?
There is a difference between providing a signal, versus its getting
received and use.
Please provide objective data that these signals are being perceived
and used effectively by end users.
Dave, I made a mistake to preempt the remaining comment by saying "Do
you need real examples?" I thought I had removed it. It was rude. Sorry.
Please read the remaining part in my previous message with my input
explaining how GMAIL provides Trust-Related decision options to the
layman user mail reader.
There is a lot more to this and I need to go. I think you are
correct in suggesting the user has no input in the protocols are are
looking for. Its the deterministic vs subjective/learning/heuristics
protocols issue again. In reality, we don't have the latter (IETF
public domain standard for a non-deterministic filtering engine).
Unless we want to include SpamAssasin as the Default EmailCore AVS
Engine, it has been a long time missing, desirable part of the total
picture. With that engine, users would be a natural part of the
equation. Unfortunately, we are not there. But with the former, I
always thought these deterministic protocols were targeted for
unsolicited, anonymous transactions where only the AUTHOR DOMAIN, the
self-signing domain, is the only trusted source. Not the user or even
the sender unless IFF there is an Author::Sender association established.
Have a good day, off to relax at the safe-distancing pool.
--
Hector Santos,
https://secure.santronics.com
https://twitter.com/hectorsantos
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
