On April 16, 2015 8:05:25 PM EDT, Douglas Otis <doug.mtv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On 4/16/15 3:40 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> 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. >Dear Scott, > >This misses the point. There is precedence for DMARC using >lists composed without an official basis yet essential to >its operation. Why wait for dbound aimed at offering >completely different results? As this WG considers special >handling for domains that operate some type of third-party >service, these same considerations become critical elements >in achieving a network effect toward practical solutions >safely restoring the role of Sender wholly ignored by DMARC. > >Achieving a network effect requires consensus on how to >effectively deal with problems DMARC creates when handling >third-party services and dealing with misleading assertions >made in DMARC policy. Consensus should avoid endorsing >modes of operation that detract from the social and civic >benefits derived from an open exchange of email. The WG >should strive to ensure an email notification scheme will >not cripple other services in use for decades. Finding a >balance likely means algorithmically categorizing either >third-party domains or domains making misleading assertions.
We're going to have to use whatever PSL replacement dbound produces. Let's not have to change twice. I agree that harmonizing DMARC and various third-party originator's operations will be complicated. I think the mediator case is more tractable, so I have focused there for now. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
