RBLs are alive and well. I understand the risk of helping the bad guys, but I think the evidence is that silence is hurting the good guys more than the bad guys. My focus is on defining a framework for discussing product capabilities, while leaving room for vendors to add value above the minimum configuration. Demonstrating email legitimacy is essentially a protocol between sender and receiver. IETF has only defined one half of the protocol, so why should we be surprised that the conversation is broken. Expertise can be assembled; the task is desperately needed. In the interim, I am open to recommendations for good spam filters. I have been trying to avoid disparaging the bad ones by name in a public forum. Doug Foster
---------------------------------------- From: "John R Levine" <jo...@taugh.com> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 9:41 AM To: "Douglas E. Foster" <fost...@bayviewphysicians.com> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs > Since bad email filters are the problem, why is there no IETF working > group to define the expected behavior of email filters? More > importantly, can we start one NOW? It's kind of outside the IETF's expertise -- there are people in the IETF (not in this WG) who believe that DNSBLs were a failed experiment in the 1990s and nobody uses them any more. There's also the perverse incentive that if you define the way filters work, you're giving bad guys a road map to avoid them. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
