On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2020, Dotzero wrote: > >> If the people you claim don't want the outcome they have as a result of >> the >> DMARC policy that they published then maybe they should publish a >> different >> policy. Have you considered contracting them, any of them, to tell them >> you >> know their wishes better than they do? >> > > Ericsson publishes p=reject over the objections of their employees, some > fairly high in the hierarchy, who they subsidize to participate in the IETF > and its mailing lists. I've coached some of them on what to say, didn't > help. Then Ericcson as an organization has made a decision regardless of the objections of those employees. The correct thing for Ericcson as an organization to do is to publish an internal policy that employees should not use company mail for participating in mailing lists. An alternative to that would be for them to hire someone to help them come up with a workable approach. We both know plenty of people who could help them. > > Of course you personally know what DMARC policies mean and what they > imply. But every time a list has to rewrite a From line, we have evidence > that someone else doesn't or at best doesn't care.* I'm going to guess that more often than not it is the latter. *I heard the same. Too big to care? > R's, > John > > * - I have on excellent authority that when Yahoo published p=reject to > outsource the costs of their security breaches, Marissa Meyer said she knew > it would break everyone's mailing lists and she didn't care. > Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
