Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC-Compliant Mailing Lists

[Douglas Foster <[e-mail]>]

Yes, savvy users could use the proxy to establish offline
communication, but it is not what most users would do, so the lure for bad
actors is real.

Our previous discussion about online stalking was very much in mind when I
wrote the specification.   Because of the proxy mechanism, stalking can be
stopped by (a) the list operator preventing messages from the stalker's
real address to the victim's alias address, or (b) the system operator
evicting the stalker from the list, or (c) the victim leaving the list.
 In any of these scenarios, the harassment is stopped immediately, as long
as the stalker does not have the real email address of his target.   In the
absence of such measures, the best defense is to use a separate email
address for each list in which one participates.

Doug Foster




On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 12:35 PM Grant Taylor <gtaylor=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 10/9/21 6:05 AM, Douglas Foster wrote:
> > The substantive argument is the problem of trust in list operators.   My
> > proposal made list infrastructure significantly more complex, and
> > allowed list operators to intercept member-to-member communication.
> >   This creates an incentive for nation-state intelligence agencies and
> > big tech privacy violators to move into management of lists.
>
> I believe that it makes the list operator effectively a communications
> proxy.  Nothing states that two parties need to use the proxy for any
> more than the minimum communications necessary to establish direct
> communications.  I also believe that this is a well established
> communications bootstrap method;  eBay, Craigslist, various dating
> sites, etc. tend to provide a way for people to say things like "please
> email me at my main email address".
>
>
>
> --
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>