On Monday, April 14, 2014 10:26:44 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Miles Fidelman
<mfidelman(_at_)meetinghouse(_dot_)net>wrote:
Is it perhaps also incumbent on the folks promulgating DMARC (and its
predecessors, and its sure-to-be successors) to work cooperatively with
mailing list developers, rather than taking the position "nope, we break
mailing lists, not our problem?"
The DMARC proponents did engage mailman. Version 2.1.16 includes support
for a setting that makes the operation of the list DMARC-friendly, though
likely in a way some people will find unpalatable. Either way, it was not
done entirely in a vacuum.
I'm kind of coming to the conclusion that what we need to be looking at is
defining an SMTP extension that addresses BOTH sets of concerns - and
doing
so in a cooperative manner that engages not just the community behind DKIM
and DMARC, but also the developers and operators of mailman, sympa,
majordomo, listserv - and ideally the sendmail, postfix, exim, qmail
community.
Dare I suggest that this calls for an IETF working group?
I mentioned in another thread that the DMARC people did come to the IETF to
ask for a working group to complete development of the work on the
standards track. This request was denied on the grounds that DMARC was
essentially already done, and thus the IETF had nothing engineering-wise to
contribute. There were also too few people that were not already DMARC
proponents that would commit to working on it.
(And as I said on that other thread, I'm happy to stand corrected if I've
mischaracterized any of that.)
My perception (and it may also be wrong) is that anyone who claimed there was
work yet to be done was shouted down. It was either prove there was work to
be done by going off and doing it on your own, or clearly it was done and no
more work needed doing.
The DMARC spec has certainly improved since it's been public, but I certainly
don't think it's done and have said so multiple times. I'm also willing to
work on it.
As I said in the other thread, I think the only reason it was perceived as
done is that the private group that developed the spec declared it done and
fought against any WG charter language that would have permitted changes to
the core protocol. Based on that approach, no wonder it was declined.
Scott K