Re: Enough DMARC whinging

[Mitch Rodrigues <[e-mail]>]

Here is what I gather from all this talk.

I do not think DMARC is going anywhere and will continue to gain support
and popularity is it an inconvenience definitely, however going forward, I
feel it is our responsibility to make sure it is standards compliant, or
come up with new standards so everything does not go boom in the night.
With this said,
I also see a lot of traffic being spammed now for what appears to be no
apparent reason (Mostly from Yahoo domains), but hey thats less email i
have to read through.

And as for Google.com, If google wants to use it for their internal emails,
that is totally their choice, and will go one of two ways. A) It will work
flawlessly for their needs. or B) It will break things, and force them to
refine the strategy a bit more so it can be useable in the wild.


Mitch






On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Phillip,
> >
> >> Of course the way to make mailing lists work with DMARC would be to
> >> look at the headers and treat messages with mailing list headers
> >> differently. Perhaps the issue isn't in DMARC but how the information
> >> from DMARC is applied.
> >
> >
> > From my reading of sections 10.2, 5.2, and 15.4 of
> > draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04, you can't do that and still claim receiver
> > conformance with that draft (although there's the question of whether one
> > should claim conformance to an informational draft in the first place).
>
>
> Given a choice between conformance with a draft and conformance with
> reality, I favor the second over the first.
>
>
>
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>
>