Scott, I don't really see any difference in the class of problem. You could choose to outsource email it to Google Apps or Microsoft Office 365 if you don't want to figure this stuff out yourself. Many do, from SMB to enterprise level, even though email is core to just about every company's business. For some, that's very much the reason to job it out to a company who focuses on email as an area of expertise.
On the flip side, I disagree with regard to your take on running a blog. Anybody can do it, but many people outsource that as well. I personally host my blog with a third party service, because self-hosted Wordpress is one of the most hacked into things out there and I want no part of that noise, even though in theory I could handle it. I know I'm not the only one, and just about anything in this paragraph could similarly apply to email. Regards, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson - Minneapolis - (312) 275-0130 Simple DNS Tools since 2008: xnnd.com www.spamresource.com & aliverson.com On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Franck Martin via dmarc-discuss < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > ARC purpose is to say when DMARC fail and the email should be rejected > that it is ok to let it through. As such there is no scale problem and > anyone can do it. > > If email is your core business, then complaining you have to do some work, > will not give any sympathy. > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss < > dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > >> 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) >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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)
