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

Michael Thomas <> Thu, 07 January 2021 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B985E3A110D for <>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 18:37:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ukOIf5xSUVwU for <>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 18:37:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72B6E3A146C for <>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 18:37:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 15so3757872pgx.7 for <>; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 18:37:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=4ktJQwb5UiZzFUTxH50A5sdHw12T0AUiw2oCSxNgFzc=; b=b08RdbMyTpwOacxJDfRymqrXXMQblMYj49A/DRBwd82QZl3+GFDfarSMB9GBurreYv mZJYTvAFklc0VuCdT21Qh1J+YgutEsxTGmYoC2WGCdYj5ZwqqYp8JY7jDUQ86lvqCO2d R5sXvpguxMn9u6YhVtGVCMCevHl5m3sREKZTpO04mBCHvAK3T3noq/QD4eesIYf83HFw ObEaPAp15PBw3F01XCPFQnvQ18A26m5R1V8wULQHaFYi99NCRY24jxkSYQxTXM4NWA3c BrtwLODGflz6nxXe6a7Yyn9BitLnwaQWT+50m1eeGzJ7hzVb/ueXZ3u8Apag/N/NoeUA VtjA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=4ktJQwb5UiZzFUTxH50A5sdHw12T0AUiw2oCSxNgFzc=; b=l3hqjbA2Oyy5ou+7l5hlKIxFjNKDDL9VrVhk52HssI4dV+Zs7SBT355RHJR6u3DbfV CaeFoZSyX2aRCnqqg49+MTVMrnhrtz3W75U2ZzcboIoGO5ualqd+MPpsNc7hiuGQUBRR EEdIDD/pPV9RIaf9yBNJVnapeoVxu9omdwVlHaBxGmaBBsYOli8rjjW6s6dJn2Km5OP/ AbRWoa3emXxrnsJRpH+Dqir1wy8Ve3xB9acBRFs5154SDBgVzX1wimbci+6lOO2lqEMR Ja8T9w5PWYUfDwz7oL8bkQ7ll2Obr5VCURs20BYHunvjdYmOJDTQ1DW9qDmMtiUia9NJ R+xw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531OVxMcDcJwxHj+xhbh1VqUflf1Hed3KAjntlgBWcF+QteCsiRW ZAGrRlpfacyPJPYbdcwdbrgeEUXUl6jVGnli
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwP6TsS1bRqxQof91H/XjKjNY/dlyelwMtSoxg4HLzxAnlEEqZw77nm1yFKjXhX15lU3vYrrw==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:6116:: with SMTP id z22mr7696767pgu.264.1609987065584; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 18:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id a22sm3830270pfg.49.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Jan 2021 18:37:44 -0800 (PST)
References: <>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 18:37:43 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Decorum on the DMARC WG list and BCP 94
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 02:37:51 -0000

On 1/6/21 4:21 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> Working Group colleagues,
> Discussion on this list is increasingly out of scope and process, 
> unproductive, and antagonistic. This behavior undermines the chartered 
> work of this group and will not be tolerated. We expect and require 
> more civil discourse from our participants, and remind everyone that 
> disciplining others is the purview of the chairs.

I completely recommend everybody read and understand this paper. It 
doesn't address every answer to every question, but it does allow us to 
be much more data driven rather than uninformed conjecture. It's fine to 
dispute its conclusions, but it is not fine to dispute it to just 
dismiss it out of hand based on feelings or bias. It really gave me some 
grounding from the gut feelings which doesn't confirm much of anything. 
DKIM and DMARC need to more data and much less conjecture.