Scott Kitterman wrote: > It would be nice if we didn't design standards that only worked at a certain > scale. "You must be this tall to ride" worries me.
There's nothing about ARC that is scale-specific, except for the obvious observation that there's a batteries-not-included problem, so the analysis work required to make good use of it as a receiver is likely to be infeasible for smaller receivers meaning that: - initially only larger receivers will do it, and - if it works then, over time, vendors/developers will embed slow-moving pieces in products and/or reputation data providers will add faster moving pieces to their services. This is just a diffusion process, not an exclusion of smaller players. Indeed, it would almost appear that you'd be happier if the big guys had excluded smaller players from this initiative... I'd also point out that we spent most of a decade (2003 - 2011) wandering in a highly-inclusive -all/o=-/discardable wilderness. It took the world's most-heavily-phished organisation working directly with one of the big guys in private to get any purchase on the problem, and their subsequent sharing of it (DMARC) to bring about progress more broadly. It would appear that ARC is on a similar path to improving the situation for largest unresolved piece of the problem (supporting forwarding). This does suggest a general difficulty in using a consensus-driven process to devise solutions, rather than merely refine/standardise/evolve them, however this does not seem like a reason for concern, it may simply indicate that we've gotten as far as we can get at present with such processes. The important test when deciding whether to cooperate would appear to be whether the particular solution unduly benefits the big guys compared to other viable solutions that are already known about. ! If there are none, then cooperating on ARC would appear to be a no-brainer. > Solving the mailing list 'problem' in a way that requires me to switch to > gmail (or some other large scale provider) to get my list mail delivered is > worse than no solution at all for me. Obviously. This is not being proposed, see the comments about about vendors/developers and reputation data providers. - Roland _______________________________________________ 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)
