Re: [dmarc-ietf] Overall last-call comments on DMARC

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

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 10:21 AM Douglas Foster <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Murray, I was hoping your proposal to advance ARC was serious.
>

If people think (and have evidence that) ARC is ready, then why would I not
be serious?

The WG needs to resolve that "if" though.


> To Ale's concerns, I think a registration process would help mailing
> lists, but there are many options, and we do not need to define one single
> solution.   Most of the mailbox providers already have a registration
> process for bulk senders, with a feedback loop for problem situations.  I
> see plenty of opportunity for them to build on that.
>

This also needs to be described if we think that's a part of the solution.

My overall point is that this thread makes it seem like we're not putting
forward a complete solution.  It feels a lot more like a proposed standard
that for its clear success depends on a bunch of other things that range
from experimental to abstract to undefined.  And if that's a correct
summary, I'm asking if that's what we really want to do.  It seems a little
haphazard, like we're scrambling to tie together the loose ends of a movie
plot.  We need to do a good job of bringing our audience to as solid a
conclusion as possible, or the critics' reviews might not come out well.

-MSK, participant