On Friday, February 12, 2016 05:11:34 AM Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote: > John Levine 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. > > > > Yes, exactly. Pretty much the entire value of ARC is the strong hint > > that the gorillas plan to implement it as a workaround to DMARC issues. > > I am perhaps imaging things, but my recollection is that there is not merely > a hint that ARC is being devised and implemented for this purpose, but that > this was the openly stated rationale.
It would be nice if we didn't design standards that only worked at a certain scale. "You must be this tall to ride" worries me. Solving the mailing list 'problem' in a way that requires me to switch to gmail (or some other large scale provider) to get my list mail delivered is worse than no solution at all for me. Scott K _______________________________________________ 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)
