Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposing an extension to DMARC to optionally require SPF and DKIM

["J. Gomez" <[e-mail]>]

On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 4:22 AM [GMT+1=CET], MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> DMARC is not particularly new. The private implementations date back
> to the 2007 timeframe. The goal of creating a public standard based
> on the successes seen in the private channel implementations was
> intended to open it up from a private club with limited membership to
> something that anyone could implement.

So, you want the public to aknowledge a private practice as a public standard, and at the same time you don't want input from the public but blind adhesion, because, you know, it has been working fine in our private club?

> Trying to overload other
> design parameters to attempt to solve something that DMARC
> intentionally did not try to solve is a dangerous path to go down.   

Terry's proposed extension is:

1. Optional,
2. Non-default, and
3. Not more relaxed but more strict.

Where is the danger? You don't have the need?, well then go with the more relaxed default.

> I use shared IPs across domains
> but I DKIM sign those domains and each of the domains has similar
> security implementations. So from my perspective it is possible to
> do.... I've been doing it for years.

So what? Good for you. The world is wide. One size does not fit all, yada yada...

Again, is the proposed optional extension damaging to DMARC's goals? Are DMARC's goals those of a private club, or those of the non-spoofing email community at large?

Regards,

J. Gomez