Re: [dmarc-ietf] Firing the vendor

[Dotzero <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:01 AM Neil Anuskiewicz <[e-mail]>
wrote:

<SNIP>

>
> Wrong answer. If the vendor is uncooperative then fire the vendor. 4-5
> years ago it was difficult to find vendors who were willing to deal with
> DKIM and able to do a good job in implementing. The common mantra was "how
> does this fit into my business model". These days I would consider it table
> stakes.
>
> I see your point but the vast majority of customers Of said vendors
>  aren’t aware there’s a problem until there is. But make authentication and
> alignment easy and part of setup as the best vendors do puts people on the
> right path without hassles, barriers and disincentives.
>

This is NOT an interoperability issue that needs to be solved by the IETF.
It's a personal problem between a client and their vendor.

>
> Fire the vendor isn’t always that easy if you’re locked in and you’ve got
> shit to do. We’re talking about stone masons, accountants, non profit
> organizations, home inspectors, SaaS companies, and all the other people
> who have stuff to get done.
>

Perhaps the IETF needs to come up with an RFC for people who are locked in
and have shit to do. On the other hand, thst may not fall into the realm of
technical problems that the IETF deals with.

>
> Yeah, I’ve helped clients fire plenty of vendors but I’m just saying it is
> not first on one’s to do list most days.
>

And that may be why clients who hire such vendors feel pain, not just with
email authentication but with a whole raft of other issues. A vendor
problem != something that the IETF is going to fix with an RFC.

Michael Hammer