Hi folks,
After reading a few articles like
http://thehackernews.com/2014/04/yahoos-new-dmarc-policy-destroys-every.html,
I came to wonder as to why a soon-to-be standardized project came to on
purpose break a huge part of the reality of today's emails.
>From what I can read on this ML, the subject of forwarders/ML has been
discussed here numerous times, and basically, the answer is somehow
either of:
* We do not care, forwarding shouldn't exist anyway.
* Well, this is out of the scope of DMARC.
* Maybe you could white-list the more prominent ones or implement a
way to do it automatically.
Neither of those answers is really acceptable. The only credible one is
the third (that, or this protocol is not meant to be really used and is
a purely academic work).
Basically, it appears to me as if you are designing a protocol that
would be, on purpose, only accessible to big firms that can have the
manpower to do such a white-listing and/or do not really about their
captive users. Many people appear to believe that it is acceptable to
lose 2% legitimate emails... Well, it is not.
Moreover, it will introduce a bias toward ML providers that are widely
white-listed and others, that can in fact no longer appear as they are
already blocked. Again, I see a pattern of saying "emailing would be
better if there were only a few providers".
I am really wondering as to what is your aim here. Reducing spam is a
great goal, but not by sacrificing so much.
I know there has been discussion as to whether this should be an IETF
WG. Well, the answer is no. Definitely no. After all, the mission of the
IETF is to make the Internet work better, and purposely excluding a
section of the Internet is not a way to do it.
Regards,
PA.Dupont
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
