On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:08 AM Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2020, Dotzero wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> No doubt, but they're not going to do that. They want their employees to >> work on the IETF, the publish p=reject and they apparenty believe the >> contradiction is not their problem. So we're stuck with it. > > > For some definition of stuck. I happen to believe that > validators/receivers SHOULD generally respect policy assertions.. Mail list > operators should as well. Absent a functional and meaningful mechanism for > authorization of specific intermediaries by domains, that is the way to go. > If things break and users complain then those users should be told to > contact their mail administrator. Just saying. >
If this only interfered with Ericsson's users, I might agree. But it recklessly interferes with third parties. To me, that's significant. > Yup. They want phishes, or in Yahoo's case expensive user complaints, to >> go away, they don't care about discussion lists one way or the other >> > > Perhaps they would care if users/customers complained and or walked. > Again, just saying. > Perhaps. But if they don't, is the current status quo implicitly okay? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
