Hi,
On Tue 29/Apr/2014 16:39:18 +0200 John C Klensin wrote:
>
> If one examines those relationships, there is a case to be made
> that the problems they cause to mailing lists is not "collateral
> damage" at all. Even if the effects were discovered by
> accident, continued use of DMARC with restrictive policies has
> the consequence of driving traffic away from mailing lists,
> perhaps especially mailing lists operated by smaller providers
> and non-profits, toward use of the for-profit systems operated
> by those same (to quote another recent comment) "too big to
> ignore" operators with a positive effect on their bottom line to
> the detriment of other operators and ways of doing things.
>
> Behaviors by large ("dominant", "too big to ignore", etc.)
> industry actors that have the effect of driving alternate
> solutions or providers out by mechanisms other than fair
> competition in the marketplace, especially when those mechanisms
> come out of collaborations among such actors, are, if other
> conditions are met, rather seriously illegal in many countries.
> If intent can be demonstrated, they are even more so.
That picture can get even more compelling by comparing DMARC's core
with SPF policies as historically proposed. It was well known that
SPF breaks forwarding while ADSP breaks mailing lists. DMARC chose to
err on the ADSP side, by confining SPF to an auxiliary author's domain
verification role. One might malign that forwarding is requisite for
free-mail providers who draw users among people who already own a
mailbox somewhere.
However, I'm for a teleonomic view, where chance and necessity
determine the selection of fitter coalitions of structures and
functions. The outcome favors for-profit systems because that is
(still) what our society is built upon. If IETF, ISOC, or open-source
movements aim at promoting a different model of human cooperation, I
regret to conclude that the likely negative answer to the question in
the subject is to be considered something of a defeat. Some competed
for an alternative evolution (recall the endless discussions since
MARID) but found no consensus.
> So, as a purely hypothetical set of questions (I am not
> recommending anything), I wonder what would happen if some of
> the people who have been claiming they or the general public are
> harmed by this would, instead of asking what the IETF can do
> about something that is not an IETF Standard, went to their
> local "competitiveness" or "antitrust" authorities, explained
> the situation and started complaining?
I'm neither a lawyer nor an ML admin, so I'm not going to claim
damage. Yet, like most of us, I'll be harmed if MLs stop working well.
> I also wonder whether the IETF and ISOC have, or should seek, legal
> advice about how to keep adequate distance between themselves and
> this situation should some relevant jurisdiction initiate an
> investigation or enforcement action.
Rather than rebuffing responsibility, I'd expect the IETF to invent
something new, which works much like ML used to, but is compatible
with DMARC. Yes, we may continue to call them "mailing lists". The
alternative, to blame domains which follow the leading trend, doesn't
seem to be very promising...
Ale