On July 16, 2014 12:55:00 AM EDT, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
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.
DMARC is already fielded and being standardized. Much of the work of this WG is
about mitigating the side effects of this. So in this case, least bad solution
still wins (which may be write a BCP and declare victory, I don't know).
DMARC itself is already known not to work for common standard mail flows. This
is an effort that is devoid of solutions that don't have at least some
significant downside. The working group is going to have to figure out which
downside hurts the least.
Scott K