On 6/10/2014 3:16 PM, Vlatko Salaj wrote:
On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 9:01 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org>
wrote:
LSP are just feeling the pains of their early ignorance of the
technology.
That, sir, is false, both as to fact and as to causality.
The choice was among different varieties of pain, but
no amount of preparation would have made the pain avoidable.
that's a completely wrong assumption. they all knew DMARC doesn't
work for any case where 3rd party is involved. document even says so.
As someone who has been involved in this space for quite some time,
Stephan's perspective is much closer to reality. I'll grant what the
document says but I'll also point out that the expectation was that
domains without end users (or tightly controlled end users) were the
candidates for p=reject. Even proponents such as myself that the
community is best served by MLMs adapting to email authentication
practices were somewhat blindsided by the moves of large mailbox
providers to implement p=reject. My personal expectation was that the
issue would be forced as more enterprises and vendor dependent
organizations had access to DMARC through their appliance/application
vendors.
however, they decided it's not their problem, and instead
of solving it, they just ignored it, cause no rich corporation
is using 3rd party services anyway.
In this you are correct to a certain extent. It may be that the voices
"representing" MLM developers/operators were not as representative as
some thought. Personally I find Stephan's observations and comments
thoughtful even if I do not necessarily agree with everything he writes.
"Rich" corporations do use 3rd party services such as ESPs quite
frequently.
and thus, early ignorance brought us here where we have DMARC
on non-IETF path, where we r bitching about mailing lists and
where we have 3 different 3rd party proposals.
Quite a few things brought us here where we have DMARC on a non-IETF
path - mailing lists are only one item among a number of items. That is
not to say that we will not find DMARC on an IETF path in the future. As
the furor and tempest have declined and more thoughtful discussions have
emerged, I'm personally encouraged that we collectively have an
opportunity to find good (for some definition of good) approaches to the
issues at hand, including getting DMARC on an IETF path.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
