[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.


Andrew Sullivan
asullivan at dyn.com

More information about the dmarc-discuss mailing list