On Saturday, March 21, 2015 3:36 PM [GMT+1=CET], Hector Santos wrote: > As a long time total mail system product(s) developer, at this point, > IMV, we have a marketing problem. > > We did have technical solutions laid out with 3rd party authorization > concerns. However, it hasn't been "sold enough" and if even if you > do work it, you have to champion it. One can't write documents nor > work on ideas while still believing it won't work. If you (the > authors) don't believe it, no one else will -- the bottom line.
I consider that any "3rd party authorization scheme" for DMARC will fail --not to fail technically, but to fail be implemented in the real world-- if it happens to need, to be workable, the nuanced and labour-intensive participation of the sender's domain Owner. Consider Yahoo and OAL reckless usage of "p=reject". Why would they suddenly be any less reckless and choose to take into account any "3rd party authorization scheme" for DMARC? Do we have any hint from big ESPs currently using "p=reject" that they are willing to take into account any "3rd party authorization scheme" for DMARC? If not, we have the risk to taking the effort to design a great "3rd party authorization scheme" for DMARC which ultimately will fail to be taken into account in any significant way in the real world. So, Hector, no matter how good "marketing" is, it is going to be next to impossible to sell something which is nuanced and labour-intensive, and at the same time provides little --perceived-- reward to the agents tasked with implementing it and keeping it current and running in a well-oiled fashion. Regards, J.Gomez _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
