IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains

"Douglas E. Foster" <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com> Sun, 02 August 2020 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <btv1==4838b3e5c39==fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289A53A0ACC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 11:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bayviewphysicians.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZrtdhJxHk-qk for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 11:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bayviewphysicians.com (mail.bayviewphysicians.com [216.54.111.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C59883A0AC6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 11:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1596394516-11fa3118c7b4eb0001-K2EkT1
Received: from webmail.bayviewphysicians.com (smartermail4.bayviewphysicians.com [192.168.1.49]) by mail.bayviewphysicians.com with ESMTP id YTnNyox7euRHGiP4 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 02 Aug 2020 14:55:16 -0400 (EDT)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
X-Barracuda-RBL-Trusted-Forwarder: 192.168.1.49
X-SmarterMail-Authenticated-As: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bayviewphysicians.com; s=s1025; h=message-id:reply-to:subject:to:from; bh=HyFxzXG9LwRMFk5FqV0DQTFo2PFVqcuKfI4PYx2stco=; b=fXa3tYUk73zHr1fVNGtOS3SDWfYouTuCZqsUrvv8QHFb2o5GEtl8GaCDL4O6BcU29 u4dpgU3ZdRPxiTPnDYYVptJVjJoH7m/yfTTrC/+yjXzBP9BhhaBrYzxHEVLOq0+hY SoGhSuaP4ea8h6jbO4vClRRrY9p1pJPy+E2kohXmQ=
From: "Douglas E. Foster" <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2020 18:55:09 +0000
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains
Reply-To: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
Message-ID: <719dce3edbc54b25b6ebf248170e7eb2@bayviewphysicians.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f99d61de702c484c9af5efd36c4acb73"
In-Reply-To: <20200802165756.3892C1DC82FD@ary.qy>
References: <20200802165756.3892C1DC82FD@ary.qy>
X-Exim-Id: 719dce3edbc54b25b6ebf248170e7eb2
X-Barracuda-Connect: smartermail4.bayviewphysicians.com[192.168.1.49]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1596394516
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384
X-Barracuda-URL: https://mail.bayviewphysicians.com:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at bayviewphysicians.com
X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 2843
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.83647 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/GQLZxm_uWeRRCahM-K889x7NR_Q>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2020 18:55:20 -0000

Is it fair to say that AOL/Yahoo/Verizon is the core of the problem for you?    

If they would provide a way to register a mailing list and the servers from which it comes, and allow DMARC exceptions for traffic from those registered lists, your situation would be much easier? 

DF

----------------------------------------
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
Sent: 8/2/20 12:58 PM
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains
In article <cec0a539d7f34478930e2e172ace81c6@bayviewphysicians.com> you write:
>I wonder if this is typical - are mailing list subscribers more likely to be on DMARC-enforcing domains than the general population?
>
>Do the mailing list operators have data about what percentage of their subscribers (or percentage of unique domains) have DMARC policy enforcement in place?

In my experience it completely depends on the list. I have a list of
folk dancers with a lot of old AOL and Yahoo addresses with DMARC
policies, and I have other lists where it's mostly gmail and
Hotmail/Outlook, without.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email