Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On April 2, 2023 5:01:20 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Fri 31/Mar/2023 18:16:28 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On March 31, 2023 11:06:37 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On Fri 31/Mar/2023 02:41:19 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 8:41 PM Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Does that mean that instead of "non-transactional mail flows" we could say
>>>>> "mail flows involving decades old software"?
>>>> 
>>>> If you're going to put that label on MLMs, we need to add it to MTAs too.
>>>> Oh and most of the protocols we're talking about.
>>>> 
>>>> This is a pretty deep rabbit hole.
>>> 
>>> Agreed.  Yet, did you notice, for example, the steady decrease of X-MIME-Autoconverted breakage cases?  The hype on security sped up software upgrading quite noticeably.
>> 
>> Yes, but it didn't actively make the software less useful, so it's not really relevant to this case.
>
>
>Eh?  Some auto-conversion filters were implemented by rather elegant filters able to decode and/or encode on the fly based on peer's capabilities.  That stuff became less useful, if that's what you mean...

Less needed maybe, but in any case not really the same thing.  That may have accelerated prioritization of technical resources to abate the issue, but in that case there's no negative impact to upgrading.  

Mailing list changes to ameliorate damage due to DMARC are in no way an improvement.  Absent DMARC, they would not be needed at all.

Scott K