On Thu, 13 Apr 2023, Dotzero wrote:
It also isn't that " IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOUR MAIL GETS LOST". It matters
but there is a calculus regarding the tradeoffs of a very small percentage
(in the case of my former a very small fraction of a percent) of email not
getting delivered vs the damage
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 9:41 AM John R Levine wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2023, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
> > If DMARC can protect domains from spoofing which I believe ends up
> > costing over $14 billion per year. Forget about the $14 billion and
> > think how this crime spree affects people’s view
I note that you didn't write "MUST NOT". I heartily concur with "shouldn't"
or SHOULD NOT. I still have issues with "MUST NOT".
Keep in mind that MUST NOT doesn't mean "do this and you will die", it
means "do this and you won't interoperate" which seems exactly correct
here.
SHOULD NOT
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 9:41 AM John R Levine wrote:
>
> When we say that mail systems that don't fit the DMARC threat profile
> shouldn't publish DMARC policies, we have good reasons to say so, and
> that's what our standards need to say if we're serious about
> interoperating.
>
> R's,
>
> On Apr 12, 2023, at 9:41 AM, John R Levine wrote:
>
> When we say that mail systems that don't fit the DMARC threat profile
> shouldn't publish DMARC policies, we have good reasons to say so, and that's
> what our standards need to say if we're serious about interoperating.
>
With
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
If DMARC can protect domains from spoofing which I believe ends up
costing over $14 billion per year. Forget about the $14 billion and
think how this crime spree affects people’s view
But it obviously can't do that, and what it does do happens
