Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC

Brandon Long <blong(_at_)google(_dot_)com> wrote:
    > With the understanding that my email is unlikely to be received by some
    > of those having issues...

    > Let us assume that those who specify p=REJECT have a good reason for
    > doing so, and that after 2-3 years, they are unlikely to change back.

    > Let us also assume that the members of these organizations who are
    > participating in IETF may or may not have any power over whether their
    > admins have decided to be p=REJECT.

    > And let us assume that we want these folks to participate in IETF.

I agree with the statements, and I want people to participate.

    > I will assume that if you're not willing to stipulate to the above,
    > then you don't actually want a solution.

There is another option: the people who live in a p=reject policy regime
could use a different email address for IETF participation.  It's not a
choice I like very much though.

    > The middle man, ietf, can work around this today.

I can hold my nose and live with this solution.
I've been begging for *A* solution for three years now.

I want to put out that we are hacking a middle box to solve a problem with
end-points, and that whatever we do will become the "standard"

    > mailman should also know how to tell the difference between a message
    > specific policy bounce, and particular DMARC bounces, and should apply
    > different heuristics to handling them. I have no idea if that existing
    > in any version of mailman or is a planned feature.

It is not.

It would be nice if the need to fund this work had been considered when the
p=reject policy code was being written at the various places that wanted it.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature