On 4/16/2015 6:21 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Now I think Scott is right that we need to make a step back and his
analysis might help us to know on which solutions we'd best spend most
of our time. However, having said that, I'm afraid that we're biased
by our discussions around the 'DMARC/Mailing List problem'. Let's not
forget the other use cases of draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability.
+1 Extremely bias.
Lets keep in mind that there are two minimum receivers generally with
a MLM transaction that also need to be part of the cost and impact
analysis:
MDA1 -- receiver and resigner
MDA2 -- final user(s) receiver(s).
Another solution (partial) is for MDA1 honor policy and not allow
resigning to take place. The one that is talked about the most are
the MDA2 end user receivers rejecting messages. We will want to
maximize the MDA2 consistent and persistent result factor since there
could be many different implementations at the MDA2 nodes.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
