On 5/9/15 8:07 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> > wrote: > >> > Agreed again. And as Terry has said and I think we can infer about >> > other large operators, it's incorrect to assume (and plain wrong to >> > assert) that this is an easy problem for them to solve in a >> > reliable way. >> >> Please define "reliable." I gather you all think that missing some >> mailing lists is a bigger problem than missing all of them, but for >> the life of me, I cannot see why. > I'm having trouble coming up with a heuristic that is even certain to grab > "most" of them.
Dear Murray, I'll create another DKIM extension to implement required replication of header fields for third-party domains. This can be implemented by just those originating the messages AND those implementing DMARC. Most mailing lists should not be impacted by the required header field approach, but this should remove a presumed need for yet another DKIM signature. I will have the DKIM extension draft published shortly. Also, you seem to dismiss a sizable corpus of DMARC feedback that can be verified by recent outbound logs. Of course only a DMARC domain imposing restrictive policies will have any need to implement this scheme which they should also see as their obligation if they have any desire to have their policy requests used. That said, the update to DKIM should be able to simplify what is contained in TPA-Label. Together, these methods only require implementation by the sender AND those imposing restrictive DMARC policy. Regards, Douglas Otis _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
