That's a totally different class of problem. Any competent sysadmin with some time can maintain a CMS based web site (e.g. Wordpress). The fact that so many are not competently managed is a function of capability and willingness to do a little work, not a function of inadequate scale.
Also, following that example, I choose to blog on wordpress.com, specifically so I don't have to worry about such things, but the blog isn't a core business function, so that's fine. Email is more important, so I care more how and where it gets done. Scott K On Monday, February 15, 2016 10:56:57 AM Franck Martin via dmarc-discuss wrote: > Yes it is a "you have to be this tall to ride with us". For instance, many > Wordpress sites are on URL blocking lists, because the managers cannot keep > with basic security updates. So if you want to host a website, you have to > be that tall to ride with us (or find a hosting company, that will give you > a child seat) > > The mail ecosystem is going this way too. The tools are opensource, > available to all, but you need to deploy them and maintain them. > > The spat of serious data breaches because of email, is making all of us > very nervous that kids can create so much havoc so easily... > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss < > > dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > > 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
