I have a slightly different viewpoint: On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 4:31 PM John R. Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> Since nobody else responded, here's my tl;dr -- interesting proposal, but > no. > > The first problem is that there is no appetite to change ARC at this point. > Agreed. That was a long list of suggestions. How do we test them? Who's got cycles to donate as editor to collect and document the results and thus the amended protocol? > The other is that most if not all of the things you propose are not new. > I proposed a chained DKIM signaure that lets the signer say who's allowed > to forward and resign. No interest, for reasons that in retrospect I > think were good ones because it doesn't scale. Ale has been proposing > ways to undo list modifications for ages, again no interest. > I still think the modification reversal idea is worth investigating, and I've posted my own drafts about it in the past, but I can't really advocate for this when I don't have the bandwidth right now to produce an implementation. > I would suggest spending some time looking at the archives of this list > and related ones like DKIM and ietf-822 to see what has been proposed > before, so you don't waste your own time reinventing them. > Agreed. > Finally, while the IETF is very good at standardizing things that exist > and small tweaks, it is not great at inventing new things. That tends to > happen in other groups which for mail include M3AAWG and perhaps APWG. If > you're interested in this kind of work, you should look into getting > involved there, too. > Here I somewhat disagree. The IETF can do this, and I think it's good at it when it does. But it's only good at doing so when there's a sustained critical mass of participants doing the work, and I don't think that's been the case here for a while. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
