IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Decorum on the DMARC WG list and BCP 94

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 07 January 2021 04:47 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.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 ABF2F3A0CC1; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 20:47:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 b_wLDg7bfQqu; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 20:47:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x232.google.com (mail-oi1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C5683A0EB3; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 20:47:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x232.google.com with SMTP id q25so6062944oij.10; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 20:47:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UykRh1Vq0JXsEZ8BC3UbxexnQC0kNRj8dqJUcxAmAdc=; b=Zk3hES1pXATxYitq1b//1kFpWwoPo3agyFuuudTFne8pIXihe6uY3YGmOwG5yVUo/R 1sT5qfGb3r9w5UKTbD3aNVw+VMpk+5OiD/4xqZC0uf+2z7F0dEAzQd+VBPnMAs17b05Y szfzxNXvC+kWDqXWvf0R5ITNZP2uIlkoC+omItRvPmXkPbKvM6v+s6EbKypR1Md+a2l1 sQ0Ru0qLppa9qTaSkKWap70/+eis7EkZQJcpg6a9zkqywHA2TIq44am9SV9sHeXgsjJA kjeuLDPHToQgqzHSnj/iLgy0NFbpOpKAv64SRek2nFQqWs/QhZky3MpNbjuZwpfOSVif SPPA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UykRh1Vq0JXsEZ8BC3UbxexnQC0kNRj8dqJUcxAmAdc=; b=nUuTCZvvZuoDq0suFmsccZVXDbnzh7oECm7SMIjER3qdxxxFJ2P6x6kCxB++6v3lhb rN2kV1YQFURJ2zNS1wwwfP/h0bldYcZ4EpXtMGPT8i1ue+lGhWQjEqcIzIaQsoqHzkO4 SYvtRT911psxVXiyVjC+L6n+vJuHWrty91Oxa0A80eDTBgVKy2H+8i1L6DlbufGPo9U7 OPKo7hS4YOO/6hTiizuMQYrsqCvw23eOTXhFTxyEhDD5QRK9oOFs0H+4tFDjcQBXiBPn j0tVC06mN/Y1qgqPLtSboeUqs21KWUOzQYQvPALL6N3zxXATcWOjfHEWKgUPl2i4tBUs uZ1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533b7/mrPTLx2VXilE8Oh0MYrcXNmkM3KfIhJx+704ZUp5fxGN6z IiTpMWbCqGAujE0RHjhzNk0Ui7/TuJnO3nWG9YA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzPbwNofRkRB/OcjFSoLcqcW0Gi/dWLIctfU5XnVCEukXWY28FukziRvzKEYRToZVz6dUB/FxX45xCtqrnNcks=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:210c:: with SMTP id 12mr293981oiz.45.1609994831282; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 20:47:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOZAAfPW6Oki-4Ebgk9yS1H-r19PBTqE8nDMTFjUKY38JKgrfQ@mail.gmail.com> <acf32e64-f1fa-25df-b677-2e279ffeb2cc@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <acf32e64-f1fa-25df-b677-2e279ffeb2cc@gmail.com>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 23:47:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+HQk2+o+YweayH5t3GHua79zUBB1=1VFr6XXLgPt6kO0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Cc: Seth Blank <seth=40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, ART ADs <art-ads@ietf.org>, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000002442205b848229a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/j9RUrhAMi-8v0xJ4dUzeiWUgCXw>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Decorum on the DMARC WG list and BCP 94
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: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 04:47:14 -0000

Dave

You should have a pretty good idea based on these arguments over the past
few months to have a sense of how responses will be received. Take a step
back and take a second read.

This goes for all. Folks have very specific views of how they think mail
should work in regards to DMARC/DKIM/SPF/ARC/etc and instead of discounting
the discussion because the two views aren't identical, try to be a bit
open minded.

Tim



On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:14 PM Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/6/2021 4:21 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> > and is not likely to escalate tensions.
>
>
> Seth,
>
> Sorry, but please provide guidelines for how anyone is supposed to
> evaluate their draft posting, in that regard?
>
> And please do it with respect to the current list rather than in
> abstract and generic terms.
>
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> dcrocker@gmail.com
> 408.329.0791
>
> Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
> American Red Cross
> dave.crocker2@redcross.org
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email