It appears that Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> said: >Thanks. That's helpful. > >I interpret that as confirming my view that there is not currently a >reasonable >technical solution available. While these may be promising for the future, >it's not like any of those solutions are things that are currently available >to email list administrators. > >I don't think any of those things are going to mature quickly, so I would find >it concerning to delay publication of DMARCbis until they are ready. If we >aren't going to put DMARCbis on ice for a few years (please, let's not), then >I think we're left with something like the language that's there now or some >variation of NOT RECOMMENDED unless [unobtainium] which amounts to the same >thing, but is in my view less clear. > >I think in a couple of years we could do some kind of an update that relaxes >the current language based on one of these techniques if they become >deployable, but I don't think we can do it now.
I agree. People have been flailing away at mailing list DMARC workarounds for a decade, and the only ones that are widely used are >From rewrites that screw up lists in ways we all know. I am sceptical that we are going to come up with demunging that works even as well as ARC, particularly since none of us have thought much about the security issues of a scheme that says, pretend you didn't see these parts of the message. It's fine to work on them, but not to delay DMARC and wait until someone comes up with something that is both workable, and that lists are willing to use. As I may have said a few dozen times before, we're as done as we're going to get, tidy up the nits and ship it. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
