Re: [dmarc-ietf] Looking for degrees of freedom with Intermediaries - Effort and Policy

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 5/18/2015 10:58 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
>> The first question is:  what are the 'types' of changes that have been
>> or might be proposed?
> 
> Please define 'changes'. Do you mean: changes which solve the 'p=reject'
> problem for mail that is sent via an intermediary? Or just 'any' changes
> that might help us a fraction to come closer to a solution.

I meant things pretty generally, for this stage of the discussion.  So I
think 'any' changes that might help us a fraction.

Basically, we need to develop some guidance for anyone suggesting an
overall set of improvements.  They need to have a way of assessing the
likelihood that particular changes at the intermediary are or are not
even worth discussing.

Whether a particular proposal will entail enough benefit overall and
small enough disruption or effort at the intermediary is a different matter.

By way of example:  Getting intermediaries to pay attention to dkim and
spf validation is probably an easier step.  However getting them all to
use exactly the same wonderful MLM software that mailbox providers
consider the very best for anti-spam, is probably in the realm of
impossible.  (And given the weaknesses of monocultures, it's also a
terrible idea...)

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net