On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 3:13 PM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
So it seems quite odd that for DMARC the IESG demands perfect interop, even
though we have a long history of looking at the interop/security tradeoffs
of the things we design and letting people decide.
Nothing I've said claims the IESG is demanding anything like perfect
interoperability. But since interoperability is one of the key things the
IETF values, I am saying that it's pretty weird to put forward a
specification on the Standards Track that breaks the deployed base in
significant ways without at least explaining why the WG thinks that's a
reasonable thing to do, and I would expect questions downstream if we don't
do that.
I would be willing to put something like yesterday's message into a
Background or Motivations section. Or maybe something to obsolete
RFC7960.
The reality outside the IETF is that mailing lists have shrugged and dealt
with DMARC, and the rest of the world doesn't care. It would be nice to
make forwarders work again, but a lot of them (my alumni address for
example) have changed to be real mailboxes you can poll with IMAP.
It also occurs to me that since most MUAs now only show the From: comment
rather than the address, the change that changes "Sally Sender" to
"Sally Sender via Foo list" is an improvement for most mail users, even
though the address they can't see is now the list's address. We really
are atypical.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
