IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 16 July 2014 04:56 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92D91B2A64 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NYzSRlwTF1aB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 560BF1A02D1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6G4uhbD005855 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:56:46 -0700
Message-ID: <53C605A4.4060102@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:55:00 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)
References: <20140714164212.22974.20340.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01PA7DC3IFS0007ZXF@mauve.mrochek.com> <53C592C8.6050506@dcrocker.net> <2055119.KbR20u4qsL@scott-latitude-e6320>
In-Reply-To: <2055119.KbR20u4qsL@scott-latitude-e6320>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6h__G1lS-ifuGoI1epY8Hz4lhzo
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 04:56:48 -0000

On 7/15/2014 8:55 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think, despite all your assertion by distant authorities, it may be that 
> something involving U/I requirements (not design, I agree that's out of scope) 
> may be part of the least bad solution we have to the problems the WG is going 
> to be chartered to solve.


1. What sort of 'proximity' do you require, before you can be swayed by
authoritative information?

2. By 'least bad', it appears that you mean it is ok to standardize
something that is known not to work, to the extent that the end user is
expected to be part of the decision process.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email