On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Vlatko Salaj <vlatko.sa...@goodone.tk> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 8:01 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker > <ph...@hallambaker.com> wrote: > > >> There is a traffic jam in Cambridge/Boston >> several times a day as the lifting bridge opens to let some plutocrat >> sail his yacht through at rush hour. Several thousand people have to >> wait half an hour to get to work for one person to enjoy their hobby. >> I think that is a rotten and selfish way to run things. > >> Chances are that the >> conclusion is going to be that NO DMARC WG is formed because the >> people using DMARC are not interested in the changes that are going to >> be proposed. > > i just love this, i had to comment. > > Phillip goes about a story of a bridge and rich, selfish ppl disallowing > thousands of workers, and then he mentions how rich [read selfish] > corporations > don't wanna change DMARC and thus go on affecting thousands of domains... > > and he doesn't realize the paralel.
No it is you who don't see the parallel. Google and Yahoo's position here is analogous to that of the MBTA, they are one entity with a lot of money but they are acting for the benefit of thousands. Meanwhile we have a bunch of privileged Internet early adopters who think that the rest of the world should revolve around them. The number of people using Yahoo/Google is over a billion. The number of people being inconvenienced by DMARC more than they spend effort on complaining about it is likely to be zero. The issue here is not that the yacht owner is rich, it is that there is one person able to inconvenience thousands by citing a precedent. >> So given the fact that DMARC is causing problems for mailing lists we >> should not automatically assume that the solution is to change DMARC. > > DMARC is causing problems for many things, not just mailing lists. > otherwise we wouldn't be having 3rd party alignment support > proposals. yet we have 3 of them. > > and it's just beginning. Yes, its not just SMTP that is going to be extended with as policy layer. Every Internet protocol will be covered by one. Back in the day I was the only person saying that NAT was the deployment mechanism for IPv6, not something to be deliberately sabotaged because it does not meet some IETF dogma. I was right then and I am right on this one. DMARC is the right way to do email. It is over done, deployed. The only question that is left for the IETF now is whether to fix any damage it might have caused and if so, how. >> Though since 'shut >> DMARC down because we says to' is not going happen pretty much >> anything has a better chance of deployment. > > well, since we don't have an oracle to ask what will happen to > DMARC, i'll rather leave all options open. When was the last time I was wrong on something like this? It is possible that Google and Yahoo might retreat but I can't see why they would. > however, i'm sure not gonna subscribe to this bullying, rich > corporation tactic: "we will do what we want, and u can't stop us". You don't understand the Internet then. All that makes the Internet different is that everyone has that same exit option. The only sine qua non of the Internet is that networks communicated via IP. That is a strict rule but it is the only rule. Everything else is on the table and anyone who wants to do something different can. And there is nobody to go to to ask permission. The Internet is an empowerment technology. Or at least it is since the Web reworked it. The goal of the Web was to put publication capabilities in the hands of everyone so it wouldn't just be Rupert Murdoch who could decide what was news. We don't have rules, we have conventions and standards. But anyone who does not like those standards is always free to rip them up and do something else. This is not a decision making body. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
