Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 9:20 AM Michael Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> What I still don't understand is what drove the decision to deviate from
> ADSP. From reading through DMARC, it's basically ADSP nee SSP with
> provisions for SPF and the new reporting feature. SPF had its own policy at
> the time, but adding it and the reporting could have been done in the
> context of an ADSP-bis. Had I been paying attention, I certainly would have
> supported adding both of those features because they clearly make getting
> to the end goal better.
>

As I recall, people took a run at trying ADSP and it was largely
unsuccessful.  I recall at least Yahoo, PayPal, and Google trying it but
finding that it interfered with their employees' participation in lists, so
they each invented new domains for their employees to use as separate from
their operational public services.  This basically led to its demise.

This might also be because there weren't significant actors pushing for it,
or because it was basically an all-or-nothing prospect, or because its
scope in terms of domain name coverage was too limited.  DMARC was in some
ways a second attempt at ADSP that tried to address those apparent defects.

In addition to reporting, the Organizational Domain, "pct", and "sp" were
considered major features at the time.

-MSK