Jim Popovitch wrote: >>>> You should definitely disregard reports that aren't useful to you. >>> >>> I'd actually prefer to work with the sender in order to fully >>> understand the differences between what they see and what larger >>> receivers see. >> >> Given that feedback is provided on an as-is basis, and particularly given >> your assertion immediately below, your preferences are presumably not >> relevant to this question. > > Thank you Mr. Manners.
I don't follow. Are you conceding that receivers sending reports may not find your preferences terribly important? > That's just your opinion, man. For the good of the industry they do > have an obligation to get it right. The self-entitled act - Dudeist or otherwise - tends to be an ineffective motivator for others, even when it doesn't engender outright resistance. >>> Let me reiterate something I've said a few times now. I only need 1 >>> accurate report, that attests to alignment, to know that my work is >>> complete. The rest are chaff, and I've got no interest in reading >>> reports on chaff. >> >> This claim is difficult to reconcile with the fact that you continue to look >> at smaller receivers' feedback and then complain about their failure to >> provide with accurate data. If this claim were correct, then >> your observed behaviour would be that you'd check against Yahoo! and/or >> Gmail and then not even look at other receivers' reports. This quite clearly >> does not describe the situation correctly and therefore invalidates your >> claim. > > You are just reading and seeing what you want to see. It's pretty > clear that I don't need to look at all reports, all the time; but that > I do, on occasion, look at all reports to see how things are going. I'm merely reading what you wrote (and indeed, quoting it). Expanding my earlier comment below, you: - switch position to the narrow interest of only caring about enough feedback to test your code when your obligation argument is refuted, - switch back to your self-entitled "obligation" position when your narrow interest claim is refuted by citing your own behaviour, - and then start the cycle again. It's clear that you do care about the broader issues despite your repeated claims to the contrary, the difficulty is that you respond to this by trying to make it other people's obligation to serve you. There is a lengthy track record in addressing email abuse of this approach not being effective. Paraphrasing (and inverting) John Levine's oft-repeated observation about funding the costs of solving impersonation/domain-abuse problems: receivers have a budget of $0 to solve MLMs' problems. >>>>> In it's infancy DMARC was designed for transactional email, not human >>>>> generated content. >>>> >>>> This is not correct. Right from the first high-volume domain with a >>>> p=reject >>>> policy (paypal.com) there was a mix of transactional and human-generated >>>> email with the same domain-name. >>> >>> I'm not going to dig up the history (esp at this hour of the AM before >>> the coffee is done brewing) but it's there in one of the early specs. >>> I've highlighted it before on this list. >> >> It is you who raised the history in support of your argument. If you're >> conceding that DMARC was originally designed/intended/implemented for use >> with individual email then this is moot. If not, then I'd happy to address >> any actual quote from relevant source material that appears to support your >> argument. > > It's the first hit when you Google for "dmarc transactional"... should > I put that in a lmgtfy format for you? :-) Noting Google's tendency to personalise results, posting the link to the page and quoting the text would have been sensible. I'm assuming that you mean, from https://dmarc.org/wiki/FAQ : dmarc.org> DMARC technology is best-suited for transactional emails and semi-transactional emails. Users that suddenly cannot reach the other members of a mailing list ... This is an obviously correct statement about the current situation; were it not so, ARC would not exist. Your incorrect statement (still quoted above) was about what DMARC was designed to do, not about its present status. >> You appear to have multiple conflicting intentions (receivers are/are-not >> obliged to you, you want to examine only-one/all receivers' reports, etc.). > > The world is multi-faceted, I apologize if the number of angles in > this thread has exceeded your capabilities. Facets and angles are fine, it's your repeated self-contradiction that I was addressing. > To reiterate, I want to only look at necessary reports, but reserve > the right to, on occasion, dive deeper to try and route out and > further understand misc issues (you call them warts). As with your preferences, your rights do not appear to be at issue here. That you actually "dive deeper" is indeed part of my argument above. >> Paying someone to report on suspect data is the opposite of what I proposed >> and you quoted. > > I'm pretty sure your words advocated paying monies to someone else to > look at the totality of my DMARC reports. Only as a solution to your apparent unwillingness to deal with real-world warts yourself, and implicitly to remove the suspect data. > I prefer to take the high road and make an effort to remove the warts > rather than than acquiesce into their acceptance. Inconveniently, receivers are generally not interested in funding the high roads of others. - 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)
