On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 2:01 PM Brandon Long <bl...@google.com> wrote:
> I tend to agree with the negative stance on third party auth, but SPF > obviously has the include: statement which is third party auth at the most > basic level... > atps[1] is the obvious equivalent for DKIM. I don't know if atps failed > because it wasn't all that useful, or if it was tied in folks minds to > adps, or the failure of the follow-on reputation system stuff.. > > Neither atps or spf include are really designed for large scale usage > across thousands of "relays" etc, and I don't think they should be used for > that, but for a bunch of small to medium entities, it could be the thing > that makes higher p= possible. > ATPS was designed as a proof of concept to see if third party policy was conceptually useful at all. Scale could come later if the initial experiment had a positive result. The industry, however, apparently didn't even have appetite to try, so we may never know. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
