All the best, Hector Santos
> On Sep 13, 2023, at 8:51 PM, Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:28 PM Hector Santos <hsan...@isdg.net > <mailto:hsan...@isdg.net>> wrote: >>> On Sep 11, 2023, at 9:24 AM, Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:dotz...@gmail.com>> chastised Douglas Foster >>> >>> Absolutely incorrect. DMARC is a deterministic pass|fail approach based on >>> validation through DKIM or SPF pass (or if both pass). It says nothing >>> about the acceptability/goodness/badness of a source. >> >> So why are we here? > > Because you care? I do. >> >> Correct or incorrect, a published p=reject has to mean something to the >> verifier who is doing the domain a favor by a) implementing the protocol and >> b) the goal of eliminating junk. If there are false negatives, whose fault >> is that? The Domain, The Verifier or the Protocol? > > DMARC does one thing and one thing only. It mitigates against direct domain > abuse in a deterministic manner, nothing else. It doesn't stop spam and it > doesn't depend on or involve reputation. It is but one tool among a number of > tools that various parties can choose from. A message passing DMARC > validation does not mean the message is "good". There is no question of > fault. Perhaps you should recommend changes to incorporate a blame game if > your goal is to determine fault. Deterministic means there is no question - you follow the protocol. Your (speaking in general) opinions don’t matter. >> >> Please try to be more civil with people’s views or position with this >> problematic protocol. > > Thank you for sharing your opinion. I'm truly and deeply sorrowful if I have > offended your sensibilities. I will consider including trigger warnings on > future posts. Share that with Douglas Foster. >> >> Thanks > > You are welcome. My Pleasure. — HLS
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
