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

[Autumn Tyr-Salvia <[e-mail]>]

"I do get the instinct to be proactive but if you’re going to be proactive, get ready to take the time and, if outside help needed, the money to do it without breaking legit mail."

-Admittedly, that's where my bias comes in. My job is working with organizations that have paid my employer for me to be that outside help, so it's rare for me to see how badly it can be done by people setting restrictive DMARC policies without knowing what they're doing.


Best,

Autumn Tyr-Salvia
[e-mail]
Agari Principal Customer Success Engineer


________________________________
From: Neil Anuskiewicz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 3:17 PM
To: John Levine <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Autumn Tyr-Salvia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains



> On Aug 7, 2020, at 12:12 PM, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>> I feel like what is happening sometimes is that central university IT is trying to drag their whole institutions into a
>> more secure posture before anybody in a position to stop them fully understands what's going on lest they be told to
>> stop because it might make things a little inconvenient.
>
> I was with you up until that sentence, since it trivializes the real
> problems that overly strict DMARC policies cause.
>
> Just yesterday I was sorting out a problem with people trying to
> finish editing a revised IETF standard about real-time web
> applications. Some of the authors' messages were disappearing,
> apparently at random. I saw what the problem was, one of the authors
> is at a big company whose IT department insists on p=reject (and has
> blown off complaints from fairly senior people about the problems it
> causes), the other uses an MIT alumni address that recently moved its
> hosting to Microsoft without telling anyone that the new host enforces
> DMARC policy while the old one didn't.
>
> My guess is that MIT figured Microsoft will host this for free, that's
> great, totally unaware that some of its users' mail would silently
> break.
>
> I told them as a workaround they needed to directly cc each other when
> they send anything to the group list, but the whole thing is a
> self-inflicted wound.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdmarc&amp;data=02%7C01%7Catyrsalvia%40agari.com%7C2388c4693f9a41d84d4308d83f0d7ab4%7C05773123385e420d844ef01aee5e37ab%7C0%7C0%7C637328674420006184&amp;sdata=u2xp7UMS7OHzkkyzHeoKa9Ri3w8v7sjJWvW%2BXuepmj4%3D&amp;reserved=0

When mail breaks it’s more than an inconvenience. In business it can materially affect people’s livelihoods.

 I do think that sometimes people don’t take p=reject seriously enough, and don’t realize how much time and monitoring and prep it takes. I mostly work with smaller entities but I advise staying at  p=none of the time unless there’s spoofing. Otherwise, it’s reporting only, watch the reports, and take action if and only if there’s a problem.

I do get the instinct to be proactive but if you’re going to be proactive, get ready to take the time and, if outside help needed, the money to do it without breaking legit mail.