On Sat 11/Nov/2023 14:57:12 +0100 Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
On Oct 23, 2023, at 11:00 AM, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
My opinion is that Barry's text is good as is. As far as delimiting a SHOULD
NOT with another SHOULD is legit, this sentence sounds clear to me:
It is therefore critical that domains that host users who might
post messages to mailing lists SHOULD NOT publish p=reject. Domains
that choose to publish p=reject SHOULD implement policies that
their users not post to Internet mailing lists.
The exceptions to the latter SHOULD are rather obvious. Do we really need to
formally specify domain policing?
My perception is that Section 8.6 puts the issue in very clear terms. It is
even overly clearly and thoroughly explained for average readers. Only IETF
purists longing for email as it was in the 80s consider it important to point
out how DMARC is unjustly oppressing email forwarding, including mailing lists.
The rest of the world just use it as needed.
What happened to the general purpose domain, actually subdomain, which I
understood to be a non enforcing subdomain just for distribution lists. That
idea was far from perfect but it seemed good. To clarify were you obliquely
supporting the general purpose domain idea?
I can think of alternatives but those alternatives clearly affect
interoperability. Since. Discussion some weeks ago I learned here that we must
consider interoperability at every step, which makes sense morally and
practically in the face of a real interoperability issue.
Yeah, I lurk enough to have drunk the koolaid. That said, are there list
operators who participate and cogently make their case on why there’s no viable
mitigating changes they could make? It’s plausible that the answer is no but
it’s not 100% clear that this is a problem that can’t be solved. It’s pretty
clear there aren’t good solutions on less bad ones.
If this issue is already decided on and I’m beating a dead horse, I apologize.
If I’m going to lurk it’s got to be every day for at least a few minutes to
avoid dead horse beating that I’m sure is annoying.
A taxonomy of possible mitigations was published in 2014:
https://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Mitigating_DMARC_damage_to_third_party_mail
That page distinguishes among sending side workarounds and other approaches.
The former can be implemented unilaterally without further discussions.
Discussions take decades, as we see. It seems that mailing lists, and
forwarding in general constitute a minor problem for the vast majority of
mailbox providers. The urgency for a better solution is only perceived by
mailing list users, an area where ietfers are especially active but the rest of
the world, on average, is not.
There are cooperative solutions, but they won't be implemented until forwarding
becomes a noticeable problem for large operators.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
