It appears that Douglas Foster <[email protected]> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >I propose that a paragraph along these lines be inserted into the >introduction: > >The DMARC test is characterized by a one-tailed error distribution: > Messages which pass verification have a low probability of being false >positives of actual impersonation. When a recipient intends to exempt a >high-value sender from content filtering, identity verification ensures >that such special treatment can be done safely, without concern for >impersonation. However, the same cannot be said about verification >failures. Verification failures can occur for many reasons, and many such >messages will be safe and desired by the recipient. Messages which do not >verify are optimally handled with manual review, but this may not be >feasible due to message volume. DMARC provides a way for senders and >receivers to safely cooperate to minimize the probability that automated >disposition decisions will be suboptimal.
The point of a spec is to tell people how to interpoerate. I don't see how this contributes to that. Also, as we have found from the past several years of argument, the last sentence is simply wrong. In some cases DMARC lets you make correct decisions, in others it does not/ R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
