On 13/11/22 21:06, Jim Fenton wrote:
On Nov 12, 2022, at 8:32 AM, Roland Turner
<roland=40rolandturner....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
On 11/11/22 23:09, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
More concerning to me: The IETF has previously taken the position
that the market will figure out spam and phishing, and therefore
consideration of protocol solutions should be deflected. DMARC was
the result. I feel that we leave this to the market, and that
industry, at our own peril. I think we should give this a serious
look before rejecting it outright.
Are you able to state concisely why DMARC was a harmful outcome,
assuming that's your intended meaning ("peril")? From my admittedly
somewhat bystanderish perspective, DMARC looked like a great success,
particularly after IETF repeatedly failing for more than a decade[1].
I would give my opinion, but that’s off-topic for discussions of the
replay problem.
Fair enough, but I understand that the current topic is discussion of
a/the forum for work on that problem[1], rather than discussion of the
problem itself. My intention was not to relitigate DMARC, but to
understand what bearing that particular protocol's development path has
on the present forum discussion. If you feel that you're able to cast
light on that question, then I'd suggest that it's well within scope.
- Roland
1: whether to reactivate this WG, with or without a charter, with or
without a BoF, etc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
