In article <2bf78d7529ba4c5e935315d767783...@bayviewphysicians.com> you write: >The "mailing list problem" was introduced into this discussion as an objection >to DMARCs >progresss, by implication suggesting that DMARC must be delayed until a >solution is found which >creates no inconvenience to mailing list operators.
At this point I truly have no idea what your point is. The fact that DMARC screws up mailing lists is enough of a problem that a lot of people have put considerable time and money into inventing and implementing ARC. More than that, DMARC exists, it's deployed, it's not going to change beyond minor tweaks to clarify unclear parts of the spec, perhaps to deprecate minor parts that don't work the way we anticipated, and perhaps minor additions like https reporting. In particular, there is no chance whatsoever that any DMARC policy will become mandatory, because the IETF doesn't do mandatory. The word MUST only means "do this to interoperate with other systems", not do this or else. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
