How, pray tell, shall the IETF enforce it's will upon those who fail to see the 
light?

For a historical parallel, I would invite you to research the IETF's historical 
view on Network Address Translation (NAT) for IPv4 and it's effectiveness on 
influencing the operational use of NAT.

Scott K

On October 10, 2021 5:11:34 PM UTC, Douglas Foster 
<[email protected]> wrote:
>This is disappointing and problematic.
>
>So, AOL publishes a policy which says that they do not want their outbound
>messages altered in transit, and implements filtering which demonstrates
>that they do not want inbound messages modified in transit.
>
>In opposition, we have mailing lists that claim an unrestricted right to
>alter messages in transit.
>
>What is the justification for IETF to be involved with developing
>strategies to undermine AOL's interests in favor of a Mailing
>List's interests?   It is capricious and misleading for you to say that we
>are not being the Internet Police, because we are clearly taking sides.  If
>we are not the Police, then apparently we are the Internet Smuggling
>Cartel.    This just looks wrong.
>
>Doug Foster
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 6:09 PM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Technically it's pretty easy to set up a mailing list which doesn't modify
>> the message in ways likely to make DKIM fail.  Almost no one bothers to do
>> so despite pressures resulting from widespread use of DMARC p=reject.
>>
>> Operators do not need to justify anything to us.  We are not the internet
>> police.
>>
>> For our purposes it's enough to know that they do and there's no evidence
>> that it's likely to change.
>>
>> Scott K
>>
>> On October 9, 2021 7:39:36 PM UTC, Douglas Foster <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>> >I would be pleased to see a document which explains why lists MUST or
>> >SHOULD alter content.    After more than 2 years following this
>> discussion,
>> >no reason for this practice has ever been documented.
>> >
>> >Content changes would be easier to justify if subscribers granted
>> >authorization to modify as part of the subscription process.   But there
>> >was not informed consent when I joined this list, so I doubt that informed
>> >consent occurs on other lists either.
>> >
>> >What if, after reviewing the SHOULD list, an organization says "That's
>> >interesting but unconvincing.   Please send messages to our domain without
>> >alteration?"   Are lists equipped to give participants what they want, or
>> >not?
>> >
>> >Doug
>> >
>> >On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 9:58 AM Barry Leiba <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just on one point, for us to consider:
>> >>
>> >> > Personally, I think mailing lists changing From has horrible UX and I
>> >> don't
>> >> > really think anyone disagrees.  It's only advantages are that it's
>> >> relatively
>> >> > easy to implement in a Mailing List Manager (MLM) and it solves the
>> >> entire
>> >> > DMARC problem for a specific mailing list without needing anyone else
>> to
>> >> change
>> >> > anything.  I understand the appeal.
>> >>
>> >> I think Scott is right that we all agree that rewriting From mitigates
>> >> problems that mailing lists have with DMARC, but at a significant cost
>> >> in usability.
>> >>
>> >> I think it would be bad to publish From-rewriting as a standard.
>> >>
>> >> But here:  I think it is reasonable, perhaps advisable, to
>> >> informationally document From-rewriting as a mechanism that is in use,
>> >> and to include in that documentation a clear exposition of the
>> >> problems that it causes.  Why not get those horrible UX issues down on
>> >> paper so that when someone decides to deploy it they are better
>> >> informed?  Perhaps we can lead people to take steps to reduce the UX
>> >> challenges (for example, rewriting the way the IETF is doing it at
>> >> least addresses the issue of knowing who sent the message, and how to
>> >> reply to the actual sender, as compared to a rewrite directly to the
>> >> mailing list address).
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't that make sense?
>> >>
>> >> Barry
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> dmarc mailing list
>> >> [email protected]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>> >>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmarc mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>>

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to