Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

[Dotzero <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:39 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:25:06 PM EST Dotzero wrote:
> > Someone pointed to Sender-ID as an example experiment. A very poor
> example
> > to choose. It was broken from the start. As an aside, I kept sending
> email
> > to the folks at Microsoft using @Microsoft.com email addresses by using
> > "Sender" to game PRA to get a neutral". Furthermore, it dragooned senders
> > who had no intention of participating in the experiment by reusing their
> > published SPF records in a manner they did not intend them to be used. I
> > also point out how long it took to put a stake in the heart of Sender-ID.
> > And yet even today we can find Sender-ID records littering the Internet
> and
> > even a few places doing Sender-ID checks. For some definition of "We", we
> > are good at additions and modifications but poor at deletes.
>
> That was me.  I agree it was a horrible idea.  The point wasn't that
> Sender ID
> was great, it wasn't.  The point was that the AIB considered it reasonable
> as
> an experiment.  I think this is far less risky than that was.  I was
> trying to
> respond to the idea what the IETF doesn't support experiments where there
> are
> technical concerns about the nature of the technology.  The AIB's
> position, as
> I read it, was that such experiments are fine and if the IESG has
> concerns,
> they should add a note to document.
>
> Scott K
>

At the risk of offending some, politics was the elephant in the room on
Sender-ID and SPF both ending up being designated as experimental.

Michael Hammer