Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)x

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 10:00:08 -0400

Moving this to the ietf-dmarc list, which is where substance on dmarc is
supposed to be discussed...

On 7/19/2014 3:57 AM, Stuart Barkley wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 at 16:26 -0000, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> At third blush, it starts to look as if the current details of the
>> DMARC specification need to be better understood before suggested
>> remedies to the collateral damage of its use are considered.
> 
> It is this "collateral damage" from the broken aspects of DMARC that
> is disturbing.  The proponents of DMARC need to look at "the current
> details of the DMARC specification" and better understand the damage
> that they have imposed on the rest of the Internet.

You've cast the task essentially as requiring others to determine what
it is in the spec that causes collateral damage, while your first
sentence establishes that you have your own assessment.

My own use of the term collateral damage was about the way dmarc is
used, and did not have to do with the details of the specification.

Rather than pursuing a guessing game of what you are referring to,
please point to the details of the dmarc specification that you consider
problematic and explain why.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net