Jim Popovitch writes:

...

Do you have specific complaints?

Yes. Unless it's not already understood... the original idea behind DMARC centered around non-human transactional emails (Banking notifications, Facebook status updates, etc.).

This was understood, and is why I call what Yahoo! and AOL are doing "abuse".

But what is wrong with the spec itself, besides the potential for abuse?

Elizabeth got involved and the spec was morphed (i say bastardized)

What changed that you object to?

I'm not just nagging, I really want to know. I've been over the spec a couple of times, in a fair amount of detail, and I don't see it. But if there are specific aspects to it that are broken when used as designed, I (and John) may have some input into getting it changed.

Murray Kucherawy (the other author of the current Internet-Draft) and Dave Crocker (who's authored more RFCs than the average bear) seem far more on our side than on Yahoo!'s, and there are a couple of other people who have posted intelligent comments (and of course, the usual complement of Net.Kooks without which no standardization effort is complete). Even Elizabeth seems quite reasonable, modulo her job description.

John and I are somewhat more likely to have input into auxiliary protocols (such as the DKIM-Delegate protocol that John mentioned) which might make Yahoo!'s use of "p=reject" somewhat more palatable.

Steve