> Noting again that my comments are non-blocking (so you
> should feel free to ignore me:-), but ...
> On 22/06/16 06:08, Kurt Andersen wrote:
> >> > - I think the abstract and intro would be better if they
> >> > explicitly ack'd that DMARC affects mailing lists. . .
> > While mailing lists can be adversely impacted, I don't think
> s/can/are/ above, as previously agreed.
> > that they are necessarily more impacted than the other items
> > which are called out in the body of the document.
> >
> It is IMO entirely noteworthy that the primary mechanism used
> to discuss the definition of mail protocols, including this one,
> has been adversely affected by this mail protocol.
> One can quite rightly and fairly claim that that trade-off is
> overall a win for the mail ecosystem, but not being explicit
> about what has been the biggest downside of dmarc, from the
> IETF participant perspective, seems plain wrong.
On reflection and after reviewing the document, I have to agree with Stephen
here. The conditional language makes it sound too much like the problems DMARC
causes can be avoided, when in fact doing so almost always has an adverse
impact on the overall functionality of the mail system.
IMO Stephen's suggestion is a good one and should be implemented.
Ned
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
