The world has changed. Insecure mailing lists did not matter in the days before email became a weapon.
This month I have been fending off attacks from 20,000+ Chinese servers trying to break in using SMTP AUTH. Everyone else's organization is probably doing the same. When nation-state actors are checking every lock, security has to be tightened. I would love to go back to the happy innocence of the early Internet, but that day is gone. Like Todd, I don't see any hope that people will back away from the perceived security benefits of DMARC to accommodate mailing lists, even if we publish Barry's language. DF On Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 8:50 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 2:28 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: > >> > I think we've had this discussion before. This argument reduces to: "I >> do >> > not like what structured mailing lists, which have been around since >> the >> > '90s at least, do with messages, and I now insist that they change >> their >> > practices to meet what I perceive to be my requirements." >> >> I've been smoking on flights since the 70s and now it's forbidden. Where >> I >> live was a two-way street since ever and now it's one way. Rules change >> according to changed needs. >> > > That's a curious tactic since one of the arguments around banning smoking > is collateral damage to people not participating in that activity. That > appears to describe DMARC pretty well. > > >> Rather than waving an obscure MUST NOT, why don't we narrate the story as >> it >> went, what was the intent with ADSP and early DMARC, what some large >> providers >> did, what the reaction was, what perspectives are there now? >> > > How about both? > > -MSK, participating > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
