Dear Hector and Murray, Those in a good position to deal with an abuse problem don't want resulting disruptions seen as being within their bailiwick. Instead expect documentation explaining why it is not affordable for DMARC domains to directly deal with their policy induced disruptions of legitimate email, such as discussion forums and other third-party services employed by their users. Without taking ownership, results of this WG efforts seem at best modest changes in the nature of abuse while disrupting many valuable and legitimate email services. There is a genuine scaling concern when suggested solutions expect millions of users to "vote with their feet". Without taking greater ownership as permitted by schemes like TPA-Label, or allowing valid and compatible exceptions such as a permitted and conditional group syntax policy exclusion, is there another reasonable strategy to be moved forward?
I'll be the first to say expanding on SPF authorized address list won't work, but related limitations can be avoided with a cacheable domain hash list. This approach would be more proactive at curtailing abuse and we would like to help large ISPs prove the feasibility of this strategy. Then again, perhaps a rewriting scheme would be able to safely deal with From domain conflicts without use of a broken alias scheme such as *.invalid. In that light, a group syntax scheme seems much less problematic. How does the base document currently deal with this valid form of email? Regards, Douglas Otis On Oct 23, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Hector Santos <hsan...@isdg.net> wrote: > I'm already lost of whats going on. It seems we are waiting of Murray. Its > all Murray. Geez, Its all really Murray's framework to all this. Not a > negative, but there has to be more. There is more. There has always been > more, that is why we are lost here after 9 years. > > Sorry, but I have no idea what this is about. The only thing I think > anyone's waiting on me for is a revision to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base for > publication as an RFC through the ISE. It will contain no technical changes, > so either way, this WG shouldn't be blocked waiting on me for anything. > > Confused, > -MSK > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
