On May 17, 2015 2:48:58 PM AST, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: >Scott Kitterman writes: > > > Performing prosepective DMARC validation on receipt to determine if > > mail would be subject to p=reject processing on the distant end if > > reransmited. > >I assume you mean "... and prospectively reject"? (GNU Mailman at >least already provides options to munge From or wrap the message, >conditional on the result of such a test.) > >For completeness it should be listed, but practically speaking, for >tens of thousands of lists it just ain't gonna happen, sorry. > >The Author Domains that *want* "POLICY" control already have a local >policy in place prohibiting their users from posting to mailing lists >and the like, and are a very small problem because indirect messages >from them are very few. > >It's the p=reject abusers that are the problem, but *they* *want* >mailing lists to distribute their users' posts, despite what "POLICY" >advocates claim is implied by publishing p=reject. Those users *want* >to post, and they blame the *list*, not their mailbox providers, if >anything goes wrong or if their posts are treated differently from >users at other providers. List owners by and large are not RFC >zealots, quite the reverse, and quickly cave in to the importunate >posters. > >Bottom line: The only people who want this policy are some of us in >this working group. Nobody[1] actually involved does. Even my >colleagues at GNU Mailman who are sympathetic to the idea of >prospectively doing what the policy requests have found that in >practice it's socially untenable on lists they administer. > >Footnotes: >[1] Well, I do, but my lists are special cases. My public lists have >less than 0.5% p=reject subscribers and less than 0.1% posts from >them, so I can tell them where to go, and my university lists are >covered by Japanese Ministry of Education policy deprecating use of >Yahoo! mailboxes (without reference to p=reject and including domains >that publish p=none!)
Dave asked for a comprehensive list, not just a list of ideas that are of general utility. It does solve the problem of others getting bounced off the list due to their ADMD honoring the p=reject, but as you saw wouldn't be acceptable in many cases. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
