IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 15 July 2014 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 5E7EE1B2908 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 EnNHI5TzsKcQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22a.google.com (mail-we0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D6701B291B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w62so5792238wes.29 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=AIlvnaTODeq7Beath9KsSyH2bWQe/O8hCykSOpI6P6g=; b=wZYDRoFbU6TzaAQHnfbnUM7KSxppwmyZpG/ek8wv5GLaSeR6qrHvj0gx9zOvobx1Q6 c1AjHOtNyRPtnGCkGq7Xnupe6oC4G5+E8aNXIt1XrPeoEOhRYit5RZ/s7uU5n6eMM7Dz 1V9xEMiMK7UsLBjMU+Gpq4qQ46JhGZ8njBkzDLPB8rMT8oaELdQElwWtAzkO6e33uJ3m tREdB0ErZoJSc9bgawDel94E0K6cm9XVn+fuJlPHd0mkFjBt4Tl14+poGOOZ9cXfdZ/g 1E8GinvgGwErGI3yUM7DI0rDD8EanUocrEENa0DED9ZLTKCQP33ZVMrDLqCRNlwox5yb q5Og==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.186.178 with SMTP id fl18mr29002826wjc.83.1405450922724; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.10.99 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4479292.p2LNmhb84D@scott-latitude-e6320>
References: <20140715154418.76956.qmail@joyce.lan> <4479292.p2LNmhb84D@scott-latitude-e6320>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:02:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwadMYkDrf=5SZX_Byb7pcQP0JW-=8xb+DRNWE=hsu-pHw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bb04dd2ff951804fe400a57"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KCo6PaWzJZpx96yZ4HDqx-DaFj4
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 19:02:07 -0000

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
wrote:

> That's possibly true, but given the goal of the working group, it may turn
> out
> to be the best we can do.  In my limited IETF experience, I've seen several
> variants of "we aren't U/I experts, so we should stay away from it".  That
> may
> be true, but we may not get out of this one without having to give some
> strong
> guidance.
>
> For the large fraction of email users today that are doing it via webmail
> where the service provider controls the MUA experience directly, the
> timeline
> for improvement can be relatively short compared to traditional software
> deployment cycles.
>

Do we have any reason to believe that such advice would be read by anyone
in a position to bring about its implementation?  How much do MUAs apply,
as Ned cited, RFC2049?

Whatever each of us thinks of our collective UI expertise is unimportant if
MUA developers will end up disregarding our advice and following their own
anyway.

As I've said before, perhaps we should try to encourage major MUA
developers to participate.  That would allay all such concerns.  We might
even get Sender to matter again.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email