Re: IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Before I tuned out of this particular discussion (and I'm not sure why I'm
> tuning in again now...), I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of "A: we
> should do X" -> "B: but that would have the side-effect of Y" -> "A: arrgh,
> you're right. How about Z?" -> "C: that would have this side effect" that
> went on. It was a wide-ranging, open discussion of tradeoffs. After the
> third iteration, however, the participants maybe got a bit tired or
> restating them.

I believe that there is a great deal of truth to this.   However, in
practice, I think that the solution to the problem has been stated
multiple times, and the problems with that solution are pretty minor
compared to the problem of people not being able to participate in
IETF discussions.   The first time I remember hearing about this was
something like two years ago when mcr pointed out that the nomcom he
was on had had serious problems communicating and had indeed missed
important communications because of DMARC failures.

So while it's a fair point that I shouldn't characterize this as
people just being obstinate, I think despite peoples' best intentions,
"best" here has very definitely been the enemy of good enough.