Scott Kitterman wrote: > So I hear what you're saying, but it doesn't change my mind. I guess if the > large providers think this is useful, then meh, OK,
That would be the guys who receive more than half of the world's email? I would rank that slightly above "meh", but sure, for small guys it's not yet obvious what value ARC provides. I'd suggest a wait-and-see approach. > but I think it's pretty > clearly not for anyone else and I am a little surprised they don't have > equally good ways to solve the problem already deployed. The specific requirement is to be able to see the upstream path of a specific message, adding authenticatable trace information is the obvious way to do this. The big guys could have privately agreed and implemented a way to do so, but: - they'd then be under pressure to document what they were doing anyway, - they'd thereby deny themselves access to a body of expertise that's been helpful in refining the specification, - they'd deny themselves the direct- and increased-adoption- benefits of uses of it being developed independently[1], and - I suspect, they'd like small-to-mid-sized forwarders to adopt it - as it's they who create much of the grief for DMARC processing - which would not have been possible if it had remained a private specification. - Roland 1: As you frequently point out, non-DMARC uses are out of scope here, however the increased likelihood of their existing in the context of an open standard rather than a closed one would appear relevant. _______________________________________________ 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)
