On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 11:33 AM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is helpful, thank you. It says to me that their non-participation > does not have any direct implications for what we are trying to do. > > Specifically, it is not that DMARC has too many false positives, or that > the processing effort is unacceptable. It is simply a reflection of their > assessment that valuable information should be purchased from them, not > given away for free. > I think this is a bit of a cynical viewpoint. There are other simpler reasons not to participate in reporting. Off the top of my head: 1) It is a non-trivial compute, storage, and maintenance cost a report generator has to undertake, proportional to the amount of mail they handle, and is done largely for the benefit of others. 2) The policy part of the protocol works just fine, and is a benefit, without the reporting component. 3) There are risks of privacy leaks, either actual or perceived (or both). Many operators' business models would find any one of these hard to swallow, much less all of them in combination. -MSK, participating
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
