In
<C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E5DBBD5(_at_)mou1wnexm05(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
This is the bit I don't get. if you are going to use
useless.com for the 821 From and you don't want to check 822
bonkers.com why would you bother with a record at all?
I'm having a hard time keeping up with the barrage of posts from PHB,
so I'm only going to reply to this one even though I don't agree with
a lot of other points that Phill has raised.
Again, I don't think that domain owners will want to publish MARID
data if the RFC gives free reign to reject their email based on any
interpretation the receiver wants.
Again, different algorithms will have different, known, false positive
and false negative cases. A domain owner may well want to be able to
assert that some methods are not appropriate for their situation.
Well that is what is going to happen. So why pretend otherwise?
Well, yeah, but rape, murder and robber is going to happen. That
doesn't mean people don't create standards that say it is wrong.
The fact that receivers will do whatever they please isn't a valid
argument against creating a standard.
Heck, the senders will also do whatever they please, including
creating totally bogus MARID records. I'm not pretending that they
won't. Why not use your same logic and decree that there shouldn't be
a standard for publishing data either and then we can just skip the
whole RFC 'cause there will be nothing to standardize on?
Now, the really depressing thing about this whole discussion is that
this is a repeat of the stuff we were talking about a month and a half
ago on this list. We have gotten no where, and no one has changed
their minds about anything.
-wayne