[dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?

Andrew Sullivan asullivan at dyn.com
Tue Oct 27 00:30:09 PDT 2015


On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:22:46PM -0700, Shal Farley via dmarc-discuss wro> 
> By itself though the identification is not enough - it doesn't tell the receiver that the claim is false; the receiver must independently assess the trustworthiness of each ARC intermediary, by way of a reputation system or otherwise. The hope is that having a strong and automated way to identify the intermediaries will make creation and maintenance of the reputation system simpler, and increase its accuracy.
> 

Nothin' for nothin', but this seems like an awful lot of mechanism for
a pretty low-value piece of data, and if I'm reading you right the
people who have to implement this (at least mailing list operators)
need to do this so that someone _else's_ use of DMARC works, right?
It seems that the wrong party needs to do some work in this model.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
Dyn
asullivan at dyn.com


More information about the dmarc-discuss mailing list