On 6/8/2014 7:00 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > The mention of Usenet suggested a completely "out of the box" way to > sidestep DMARC impact by avoiding SMTP entirely, using NNTP as an > alternative transport. I merely wanted to make it clear that GNU > Mailman is *technically* prepared to think about that kind of thing, > if better mitigations for the SMTP transport aren't developed. > (Development of a new "modern" transport is completely out of the > question for us; we have neither the skills nor the resources.) Both > the security ramifications of NNTP and the social ramifications of > changing from a push protocol to a pull protocol for transport are > entirely unclear to me, however.
So that certainly could be an interesting discussion, although it's not nearly as promising as one might think at first blush. The semantic difference in the models of MLs vs. Usenet, and the challenge of adapting the latter to the form, as well as adapting all of the security and support infrastructure, are likely to be daunting. But it might force a refreshing discussion about the nature of MLs and what is needed to support them properly. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
