On April 16, 2015 5:57:10 PM EDT, Douglas Otis <doug.mtv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On 4/16/15 2:26 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> I don't think market share in the abstract is useful for >> this discussion. Per my utility analysis, the question is >> not percent of market (however that is defined), but >> breadth of market scope being sufficient to enable >> interoperability when it's needed. I would still >> appreciate solution independent discussion of how to do >> the utility analysis or I fear we'll continue to just >> argue past each other. >Dear Scott, > >DMARC is leveraging a public-suffix list to reduce >overhead. This approach will cause problems if it leaves a >gap between the domains provided by a registrar and those >listed as part of the public suffix. With the massive >amounts of DMARC feedback being generated, perhaps there >should be a way to consolidate these domains into some type >of list. Of course, I'll suggest a hashed label approach. >Can anyone envision some type of community or specialized >effort at consolidating this category of the domain space?
I think it would be better to await the results of the recently chartered dbound working group. Whatever DMARC does should, in the end, align to that, so it would be better not to have this group expend effort in that area for now. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
