Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs

["Douglas E. Foster" <[e-mail]>]

RBLs are alive and well.
  
 I understand the risk of helping the bad guys, but I think the evidence is 
that silence is hurting the good guys more than the bad guys. 
  
 My focus is on defining a framework for discussing product capabilities, 
while leaving room for vendors to add value above the minimum 
configuration.
  
 Demonstrating email legitimacy is essentially a protocol between sender 
and receiver.   IETF has only defined one half of the protocol, so why 
should we be surprised that the conversation is broken.   Expertise can be 
assembled; the task is desperately needed.
  
 In the interim, I am open to recommendations for good spam filters.   I 
have been trying to avoid disparaging the bad ones by name in a public 
forum.
  
 Doug Foster
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "John R Levine" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 9:41 AM
To: "Douglas E. Foster" <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs   
> Since bad email filters are the problem, why is there no IETF working
> group to define the expected behavior of email filters? More
> importantly, can we start one NOW?

It's kind of outside the IETF's expertise -- there are people in the IETF
(not in this WG) who believe that DNSBLs were a failed experiment in the
1990s and nobody uses them any more.

There's also the perverse incentive that if you define the way filters
work, you're giving bad guys a road map to avoid them.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly