+1. ARC is not a solution, but it is a good part of the problem. It’s not hard to see how our fall back to defocusing, the de-emphasis of the DKIM Policy Model in lieu of Reputation Modeling creating this issue.
Every issue we have today is nearly 100% because of the lob-sided efforts to impose a DKIM Reputation Model on receivers when it was predicted during MARID and into early DKIM that if we do this, we will have issues related to the "Batteries Required" Syndrome. - No standard Reputation Protocol - No single repository of GOOD vs BAD domains - To be somewhat effective, Batteries Requires (paid 3rd party service) - Exploiters attacking those without Batteries. This is why the original DKIM Charter tried really hard to focus on Deterministic Protocols rather than Heuristic Protocols based on the Author Domain. The original DKIM Charter considered “Reputation Modeling” out of scope. Now it is in scope and we are dealing with issues that can not be solved — not without addressing the DKIM Policy Model for 1st and 3rd party signers. If the group effort is to be able to write a PS for DKIM + Reputation Modeling, we should highly note it was all perpetuated by our defocus of DKIM Policy Modeling and the lack of will to fix DMARC. — HLS > On Mar 24, 2023, at 1:42 PM, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > > > > On 3/24/23 10:22 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> >> >> Fine with me, it's far from a showstopper overall. I just made the >> suggestion. >> > This wg should be concerned with DKIM problems, not other wg problems and > especially for experimental rfc's of dubious value and complete mysteries as > to what they have to do with their actual charter. > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf-dkim mailing list > Ietf-dkim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
