[Discuss] DMARC issue, Yahoo and beyond

[bill at horne.net (Bill Horne)]

On 5/29/2014 10:35 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
>> From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org [mailto:discuss-
>> bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org] On Behalf Of Bill Horne
>>
>>> I think you mean to say, nothing special is done.
>> That's not necessarily a bad thing. If Yahoo is a stalking horse for
>> GooHotMess, the Yahoo execs may be looking to see how many email
>> admins
>> knuckle under and feed their fantasy of total control.
> Did you even read the rest?
The rest of what?
> I'm in shock to hear so many heads buried in the sand.
Code Gray, subtlety and allegory department!
Code Gray, subtlety ... Ooooh, I see a sea snail!
> Ignoring them does NOT hurt yahoo in any way.  Ignoring them hurts everyone else.
... Except Yahoo users who can't receive the (mailing list) emails from 
other Yahoo users: they're not "everyone else". (Or does Yahoo ignore 
it's own DMARC settings?)
> If somebody posts to the list using a dmarc policy of reject, *you* will be unsubscribed from the list instead of them, because *your* email address is the one that will bounce.  Not theirs.
*I* am not affected unless my email provider starts applying DMARC-based 
rejection. That aside, Yahoo applying a new practice without any debate 
or discussion with those outside their "walled garden" proves that 
advertiser-supported email is evil, fattening, and hurts the 
environment. Wait: have you considered the trees before reading this email?
> Read the rest of the message.
I already read the original, thank you.
> Quoted below for your convenience.
Well, frankly, I think it was for /your/ convenience.
>
> There's a really simple straightforward fix that literally has no impact on the rest of us; it has all upside and no downside.
Except the downside of allowing Yahoo's statisticians to estimate how 
many users are willing to change ISPs rather than do without certain 
mailing lists, and whether Yahoo is now so big that it can rewrite the 
current email practices by technocratic fiat.
> Only users posting from an address with a reject or quarantine policy will have their from address munged.
Thus introducing a non-standard, on-again, off-again exception to the 
usual practices, and causing attendent errors.
> Which makes the list safe for everyone else.
I can't speak about everyone else, but I don't feel any particular 
threat from this list. OTOH, I sometimes indulge in fantasies of winning 
a lottery and finding a FUSSP, so I can understand your desire to be 
"safe".

I cannot, however, prevent all inconveniences. Sorry.

Bill

-- 
Bill Horne
William Warren Consulting
339-364-8487