On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 01:15:04PM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > And I'd suggest that if MUA's do evolve in that manner, maybe it's a > > hint that the problem which the DMARC cheerleaders tried to sweep away > > as "not a problem" really *is* a problem that users really care about. > > And I would hope that in the future, they don't once again try to do > > something that only meets their own parochial interests, and ignores > > everyone elses' concerns. > > > > There are some rather broad brush strokes here, and I'm running out of > steam trying to keep the record straight. I'll try once more: > > As John and others have already said, DMARC works fine for specific use > cases. It's already been in use by other large operators like Bank of > America, PayPal, Facebook, and others for quite some time, with no visible > impact. The results for them have been very positive. Google also has it > turned on part-way for the domain their employees use. > > The difference here is that Yahoo has users that send mail where those > others do not. This sounds like the, "Once the rockets go up, who cares *where* they come down; it's not my department, says Werner von Braun" defense. Like it or not, the (mis)-application of DMARC has caused some significant pain for some parts of the Internet. Maybe *you* don't care about it, but some of us have to deal with the distruction that yahoo.com has wrought. - Ted