--On Thursday, July 17, 2014 07:39 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 7/17/2014 7:30 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
...
but the IETF has, at
least IMO, tended to avoid protocols that favor large
providers but hurt small ones
While that certainly sounds appealing, I'm not aware of any
IETF policy or pattern of practice in that regard.
Please supply some documentation for it.
I have been asked to not go there and am complying.
To me, that makes decisions about damage-mitigation work for a
non-essential protocol complicated because one way to
eliminate the damage is to not support the protocol at all,
possibly including stripping its headers whenever they are
encountered.
What 'headers' are you referring to?
Perhaps it would have been more precise to say "delete all
DMARC-related headers", i.e., DKIM and/or SPF ones. While that
would be pretty drastic in some respects, whether it is
justifiable depends on perceptions of the damage that DMARC can
cause. I think that is a topic for WG discussion.
See my response to John Levine.
john