On Thursday, April 16, 2015 01:58:59 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:34 AM, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > > At least, we need to look at what non-technical costs they push onto other > > parties. > > > > Some changes have insignificant non-techincal costs and are not > > controversial, e.g., adding a List-ID header for the benefit of recipients > > who know how to use it. Changes that seem similar may have quite > > different > > costs, e.g., adding a List-ID and removing subject tags, forcing > > recipients > > to change the way they sort and organize their incoming messages. > > Rolf kind of said what I'm thinking here: I agree that we need to look at > the costs. But are we willing, or not willing, to accept costs that are > not zero? > > For example, asserting that all parties should have to take on zero > non-technical cost here seems like it might leave us dead in the water > before we even start. I don't have a good non-zero suggestion though, > because it's hard (or maybe even impossible) to be specific.
I think there's a wide enough variety of participants in the working group that we'll know if it's 'too much', whatever that turns out to be. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
