On Feb 9, 2017 01:36, "Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss" < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
On 02/08/2017 10:45 PM, John Levine via dmarc-discuss wrote (after Jim Popovitch wrote): They have an obligation, to everyone, to get it right, irregardless of >> sender preferences. >> > I have to say that it's amusing that someone apparently believes that > every DMARC installation in the world should rewrite their code, > breaking backward compatibility, merely because he can't be bothered > to learn how to use the analysis tools that everyone else uses. > I would hazard a guess that he hasn't grasped that this is the corollary of the obligation that he is asserting that senders of reports have to him. More importantly, it would appear that - despite my coming at the question from multiple directions in the hope of finding common ground on this point - he really does believe that random third parties have this obligation to him. This being the case, agreement on how to address his initial concern would appear to be impossible to achieve. But perhaps this discussion can be over now. > I'm being politely prodded off-list along these lines and, sadly, am inclined to agree. Apologies to all for not disengaging sooner. - Roland The only proper way to end this discussion is with a mental image: Statler and Waldorf sitting in a balcony box, high above the stage. -Jim P.
_______________________________________________ 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)
