On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> wrote:
> > What gets added from here forward really needs to be as innocuous > > as possible. I believe we're in a position where things like SPF > > and DKIM are still young enough that their implementations are > > malleable, > > I'm not sure what you mean. Now that I actually know what those > protocols do (and DMARC itself, for that matter), I don't really see > how they can be much improved. Do you mean the policy engines that > make decisions based on the output of SPF and DKIM implementations? > I'm saying that incremental changes to DKIM, SPF, and DMARC are far more likely to succeed than anything along the lines of "Everyone start using and paying attention to Sender", "Let's register yet another Sender-type field", or "Registration scheme X". The operational changes required for those three families of solutions are too enormous and involve too many wildcards for me to believe they stand a chance of success. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
