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

[Douglas Foster <[e-mail]>]

These decisions are made in the light of ransomware attacks that have shut
down critical social infrastructure like city governments and hospital
systems.

The proceeds from Internet-based fraud are funding groups like Boko Haram
that kidnaps girls into sex slavery, boys into child soldiering, and then
uses their weapons to burn Christians inside their churches.

This is not about money for fat cats, it is about trying to stave off the
darkness.

Unless a mailing list has controls in place to ensure that EVERY post comes
from the asserted participant, it is the height of hypocrisy to ask an
evaluator to assume that the post is from the asserted participant.   IETF
cannot do even the easiest part of that task, so I have no reason to expect
better elsewhere.

Societies depend on trust.   Impersonation in all it's forms undermines
trust.


Doug




On Fri, Apr 14, 2023, 9:17 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 12:37 PM Dotzero <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> While the you part of "we" may not see any advantages, quite a few
>> financials, greeting card sites, retailers AND many receivers have seen the
>> advantages, including p=reject. One thing I've learned over the years is
>> that it is presumptuous to speak on behalf of "everyone" when you don't
>> actually have their authorization to speak on their behalf. It's kind of
>> like sending email claiming to be from someone else's domain without their
>> permission.
>>
>
> We need to tread carefully here.  Standards are supposed to improve things
> for everyone, not just quite a few financials, greeting card sites,
> retailers AND many receivers.  Presented that way, it sounds a lot like
> we're saying these decisions should be biased in favor of those with
> money.  I know we don't mean that.
>
> -MSK, participating
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>