J. Gomez writes:
> > > But do you think the general email-using population will be happy
> > > to miss authentic email from eBay, Amazon, Paypal and American
> > > Airlines, just to get email from some mailing list(s) delivered to
> > > their inbox?
I don't see why enabling mailing lists to
Dave Crocker writes:
> On 3/22/2015 1:39 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > I took you to mean that the relationship between the purported
> > identity in From, based on the address in that field, and the user's
> > behavior is irrelevant to specification of DMARC and related
> > protocols.
On Sunday, March 22, 2015 9:25 PM [GMT+1=CET], John Levine wrote:
> > But do you think the general email-using population will be happy
> > to miss authentic email from eBay, Amazon, Paypal and American
> > Airlines, just to get email from some mailing list(s) delivered to
> > their inbox?
>
> M
>But do you think the general email-using population will be happy to miss
>authentic email from eBay, Amazon, Paypal and American Airlines, just to get
>email from some mailing list(s) delivered to their inbox?
My impression is that most users put a very low value on commercial
bulk mail. I'm no
J. Gomez writes:
> It's about time that MLM software that modifies the in-flight
> message, rendering its DKIM signature invalid, takes ownership as
> Author of the new modified message they are resending.
Not going to happen. GNU Mailman list owners have had the option
since November 2013, m
On 3/22/2015 1:39 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Dave Crocker writes:
>
> > Folks tend to promote DMARC's choice of From field due to the fact
> > that it's presented to the end-user, as if the end-user will behave
> > differently with DMARC active. The end-user won't.
>
> I haven't noticed
Dave Crocker writes:
> Folks tend to promote DMARC's choice of From field due to the fact
> that it's presented to the end-user, as if the end-user will behave
> differently with DMARC active. The end-user won't.
I haven't noticed anybody advocating that. The claim is that the user
behavior
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 8:06 AM, J. Gomez wrote:
> I consider that any "3rd party authorization scheme" for DMARC will fail
> --not to fail technically, but to fail be implemented in the real world--
> if it happens to need, to be workable, the nuanced and labour-intensive
> participation of the
On Saturday, March 21, 2015 10:31 PM [GMT+1=CET], John Levine wrote:
> > > How big is the volume of DMARC-problematic indirect email flows,
> > > compared to the general volume of email which can readily benefit
> > > from DMARC?
>
> The numbers I've seen say that the volume of mail that DMARC s
On Saturday, March 21, 2015 3:36 PM [GMT+1=CET], Hector Santos wrote:
> As a long time total mail system product(s) developer, at this point,
> IMV, we have a marketing problem.
>
> We did have technical solutions laid out with 3rd party authorization
> concerns. However, it hasn't been "sold e
10 matches
Mail list logo
