Re: [dmarc-ietf] Revisiting the Race Condition in draft-crocker-dmarc-sender-01

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

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:08 AM Dotzero <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, John R Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2020, Dotzero wrote:
>>
>>> Then Ericcson as an organization has made a decision regardless of the
>>> objections of those employees. The correct thing for Ericcson as an
>>> organization to do is to publish an internal policy that employees should
>>> not use company mail for participating in mailing lists. An alternative
>>> to
>>> that would be for them to hire someone to help them come up with a
>>> workable
>>> approach. We both know plenty of people who could help them.
>>>
>>
>> No doubt, but they're not going to do that.  They want their employees to
>> work on the IETF, the publish p=reject and they apparenty believe the
>> contradiction is not their problem.  So we're stuck with it.
>
>
> For some definition of stuck. I happen to believe that
> validators/receivers SHOULD generally respect policy assertions.. Mail list
> operators should as well. Absent a functional and meaningful mechanism for
> authorization of specific intermediaries by domains, that is the way to go.
> If things break and users complain then those users should be told to
> contact their mail administrator. Just saying.
>

If this only interfered with Ericsson's users, I might agree.  But it
recklessly interferes with third parties.  To me, that's significant.


> Yup.  They want phishes, or in Yahoo's case expensive user complaints, to
>> go away, they don't care about discussion lists one way or the other
>>
>
> Perhaps they would care if users/customers complained and or walked.
> Again, just saying.
>

Perhaps.  But if they don't, is the current status quo implicitly okay?

-MSK