On Jun 27, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote:
>> [removed the SPAM tag from subject] > > Which the mailing list put right back on. It seems that something in > the charter text is causing that, and I've asked the Secretariat IT > support to look into it. The worst part of this is that none of the > charter discussion is in the archive. > > I have put the proposed charter in the appsawg wiki: > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/DMARC > >> I'm not sure if this belongs in the charter, but in any case I wonder if >> it creates market confusion to pursue both an Informational Independent >> Submission and a Standards-track working group RFC. Are there other >> examples of where that has been done? As a counter-example, note that >> the publication of DomainKeys (RFC 4870) was delayed until DKIM >> published to avoid confusion, and there the names were somewhat different. > > HTTP 1.0 (RFC 1945) and OAUTH 1.0 (RFC 5849), to name two. Dear Barry, This type of problem is emblematic of anti-spam and also why anti-spam has not flatten the attack surface enough to be a meaningful deterrent for the problem DMARC addresses. DMARC constrains "trust" to validated elements from known sources as a tremendous benefit to recipients. Placing an expiry on trusted elements that can be replayed with indeterminate content from unvalidated sources takes this into the statistical area best described as anti-spam. In effect, this says we'll make this hard by asking spammers to jump this high beyond the bayesian mean. After deploying such schemes, this then becomes the well practiced height and we are back to where we started. Regards, Douglas Otis _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
