I did not say "life isn't fair" to be rude, but as a call to acknowledge the reality that exists rather than the reality you wish you had.
We know that a large portion of email is unsolicited, unwanted, or malicious. Consequently, there is no right or certainty of delivery. To get delivery, you need to satisfy the requirements of the evaluator. Reality is that lists find this difficulty and do notvwant to do this. The issue is not about lists being second class. What lists do to a message is a privileged function, because modifying a message can be done maliciously as easily as it can be done innocently. So the real problem is that DMARC demoted them from privileged to non-privileged by exposing the risk inherent in their message modifications. Non-privileged parricipants do not have permission to modify messages that they did not author. So regaining privileged status requires (a) providing one or more alternate authentication system, which will be accepted by some but not all evaluators, (b) developing request, feedback, and diagnostic tools so that the list knows whether privileged stays has been granted by a particular evaluator, and (c) performing conditional From munging based on evaluator requirements. This IS a plan for compromise. But every part of this solution has been dismissed in this group because lists are victims that deserve reparations. Doug Doug On Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 4:20 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 6:20 AM Douglas Foster < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Does anyone believe that things will change if we publish an RFC which >> says "Verizon Media MUST change to p=none"? I don't. >> > > It would be absurd to make such a directed statement. I trust you're > simply being hyperbolic. > > However, a consensus statement by the IETF saying we believe such > operators are using it wrong, or even harmfully, might be meaningful. In > hindsight I wish we had made RFC 7489 more forceful on this point. > > Lists have been hurt by the move to authenticated email. Point taken. >> However, the world is not going back to the good old days,. >> > > I infer from this that not only do you believe a revert is out of the > question, but so too is compromise going forward. I suggest that's rather > an extreme position to take. > > There is no hope for a list solution to appear from outside the list >> community. >> > > I don't agree. If the problem originated outside the list community, > maybe the solution ought to come from there. > > If or when list advocates reconcile themselves to that reality, we can >> start making real headway on solving the problem. >> > > In my view, this is in effect the same thing as saying "Life isn't fair" > again. > > >> The outlines of the solution have been on the table for several years >> already. But those solutions have been ignored because list advocates are >> waiting for everyone else to change to meet list needs. >> > > Can you please explain why lists are so clearly second class use cases to > you? > > -MSK, participating >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
