On 2015-10-27 00:30, Andrew Sullivan via dmarc-discuss wrote:
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.
I look at it a little differently, it's the people (mailing list
operators) who want to /modify/ my message that need to take steps to
not break my DMARC in the process. If a mailing list passes a message
without modification (allowing for additional List- headers, and other
normal headers), my DMARC signature is still valid.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
_______________________________________________
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)
