On 4/15/2015 8:55 PM, Terry Zink wrote:
Hi, Hector,
For the umpteenth time, not everyone need 4000 domains. Most of the
domains that will or may utilize it, simply don't need this scale.
I'm not sure you get the point that the others are trying to make. While this
*may* scale for small
I will probably regret this, but since people are throwing around things like
Pareto to argue in favor or against specific solution areas, I thought it might
be useful to take a step back and look at what might make a solution (or set
of solutions) useful to pursue.
For indirect mail flows
Scott,
Thanks for laying the problem space out in this manner.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 10:11 AM
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Indirect Mail Flow Solution Utility
Scott,
what is your summary with all this?
We probably should understand optimization concepts such as Pareto Optimality
and Query Dissemination. Both are applicable here as well.
I've actually have two receivers; one for the mediator and one for the
end-users. The problem was that
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:31 AM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
The most tedious and unhelpful discussions here have implicitly (or
perhaps explicitly) assumed that receiver nontechnical costs don't
matter, then repeatedly pointed out the true but useless fact that
there are single party
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:34 AM, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
At least, we need to look at what non-technical costs they push onto other
parties.
Some changes have insignificant non-techincal costs and are not
controversial, e.g., adding a List-ID header for the benefit of
On 4/16/15 2:26 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I don't think market share in the abstract is useful for
this discussion. Per my utility analysis, the question is
not percent of market (however that is defined), but
breadth of market scope being sufficient to enable
interoperability when it's
Dear Terry,
Since DMARC assertions cause compliance issues for
third-party domains, and since some think customers would be
unable to manage a third-party exception list needed for
draft-otis-tpa-label, draft-levine-dkim-conditional,
draft-kucherawy-dkim-delegate, and rfc6541, one solution
would
On 4/16/2015 4:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:34 AM, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
At least, we need to look at what non-technical costs they push onto other
parties.
Some changes have insignificant non-techincal costs and are not
controversial, e.g.,
Rolf kind of said what I'm thinking here: I agree that we need to look at
the costs. But are we willing, or not willing, to accept costs that are
not zero?
Sure, everything has some cost. Something I should have made clearer
is the difference between the costs of changes one imposes on one's
On Thursday, April 16, 2015 05:20:01 PM Hector Santos wrote:
On 4/16/2015 4:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:34 AM, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
At least, we need to look at what non-technical costs they push onto
other
parties.
Some changes have
I don't have a summary. To the extent I mentioned any specific proposal it was
meant to be merely exemplary. The point, is to come up with a framework to
discuss solution utility. Because there is a certain breadth of deployment
needed for interoperability for some solutions, I don't think
On 04/16/2015 08:34 PM, John R Levine wrote:
The most tedious and unhelpful discussions here have implicitly (or
perhaps explicitly) assumed that receiver nontechnical costs don't
matter, then repeatedly pointed out the true but useless fact that
there are single party mediator changes with
On April 16, 2015 7:06:02 PM EDT, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
On 4/16/2015 6:21 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Now I think Scott is right that we need to make a step back and his
analysis might help us to know on which solutions we'd best spend
most
of our time. However, having said
On 04/16/2015 11:20 PM, John Levine wrote:
Rolf kind of said what I'm thinking here: I agree that we need to look at
the costs. But are we willing, or not willing, to accept costs that are
not zero?
Sure, everything has some cost. Something I should have made clearer
is the difference between
yes, but the problem with cost imposed on third parties is that it is
valued different by the one who imposes it on someone else and the one,
on which is it imposed.
Well, sure. If I can force you to solve my problem, as far as I'm
concerned that's a free solution. I hope we agree we want to
On 4/16/2015 6:21 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Now I think Scott is right that we need to make a step back and his
analysis might help us to know on which solutions we'd best spend most
of our time. However, having said that, I'm afraid that we're biased
by our discussions around the
On April 16, 2015 8:05:25 PM EDT, Douglas Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/16/15 3:40 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think it would be better to await the results of the recently
chartered dbound working group. Whatever DMARC does should, in the end,
align to that, so it would be better not
The most tedious and unhelpful discussions here have implicitly (or
perhaps explicitly) assumed that receiver nontechnical costs don't
matter, then repeatedly pointed out the true but useless fact that
there are single party mediator changes with trivial technical costs.
Useless because it
19 matches
Mail list logo
