On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:22:46PM -0700, Shal Farley via dmarc-discuss wro> > By itself though the identification is not enough - it doesn't tell the > receiver that the claim is false; the receiver must independently assess the > trustworthiness of each ARC intermediary, by way of a reputation system or > otherwise. The hope is that having a strong and automated way to identify the > intermediaries will make creation and maintenance of the reputation system > simpler, and increase its accuracy. >
Nothin' for nothin', but this seems like an awful lot of mechanism for a pretty low-value piece of data, and if I'm reading you right the people who have to implement this (at least mailing list operators) need to do this so that someone _else's_ use of DMARC works, right? It seems that the wrong party needs to do some work in this model. A -- Andrew Sullivan Dyn asulli...@dyn.com _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
