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

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Tue, 04 August 2020 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 1C4643A0C67 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 (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 fC7c-vKFHV5f for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) (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 D1CFB3A0C3E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id 3so3485383wmi.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 09:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
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=6nLK0GSfqyUM+/3G2JpBxEGAJfeui+AkppO/iDEqrlA=; b=pHB7WNNB/JI3M8MouMBytF/zjnMBQ5XfnGnHV+f6bqtp6PbRlRoTwARPp5OMt7yjme x1Tx9j+JvN0hwzaTG8kBJUUGXliEk1LyjHetVUKTUL2me+nRU4O4dbom7MNjagqZ+ng1 LHgoY83KPhKyCHbfHQ5IyZ6T1Iv7AjqgLvJ1DXVS8q1NUNAvVdpcGpVGMAxIq/KBBJju D/dZY2jaNODO3RSkvKPLjOcMaC7jmQIaVdl6t3FfEoa+3fFK+vtU7vQhHGc8rOxHXUfs ZCSO9VeRQzaGg4z+sXU0ydY9fPrMl6s5XjEGjmmnQ8f9MB17S6oJoOpaHykzA10OaYZd PGOg==
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=6nLK0GSfqyUM+/3G2JpBxEGAJfeui+AkppO/iDEqrlA=; b=fMszdIY4bukZH46uG2hPdwicD1skLZ6i++66l7G35qOVm3Bb2lJjlVFZ84yLTSrX4A d59ffcdrhLhFtyG12LY08pm597d2qxgf//ehw8TJvxjogeWCuytEZ3282L36SOazlatB q6yxJvltNoHC/W1tydkFQnlEPEjD3XuhkbsCZF9b1+spYrX3R1XP6KMe9FNVCVqZlIw6 OP53czZ8LF80btlC6i9WpoqiBkN8PGEjAF9Ua2eGbw0t6C4cYfH5ygw1dQkE3zIf6hlr 9he5ST2R0QYcllzJEonScw2l9TkLYyCJ9seBK0fio5KFhQ+H5BhR70gtcnOE1umodTXR /3BA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531zMYT6D7B6nSrkd2B/u96TOCTFXGQWcOVEKIDNoKkPMIQBccxc alB/4YpZmtvr0lsb2+0fwCQ9YKliLEaFWbPhgyM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxM4RVrKNl+TdQR5qzMxABOIuWDjhl66KsHz1F1pRV0jushq+7Kq1hp977398kII4ZWI4Iwmuw1Pe7Rq8sxVow=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7402:: with SMTP id p2mr4765084wmc.117.1596557463322; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 09:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200802165756.3892C1DC82FD@ary.qy> <719dce3edbc54b25b6ebf248170e7eb2@bayviewphysicians.com> <CAL0qLwYFoGHL13tLOnbgf97qtgLFDo4AmutZdQvMVsuX56Vz0Q@mail.gmail.com> <fa39426a-c14b-493c-85f2-58a682461c2d@dcrocker.net> <0bc56bf161c54870b4655e98d7297f64@bayviewphysicians.com> <be655ca9-52b0-0fa6-1293-06f64a4984f0@bluepopcorn.net>
In-Reply-To: <be655ca9-52b0-0fa6-1293-06f64a4984f0@bluepopcorn.net>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 12:10:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYc3+uUg+1pLPxg_cS+ULTrRZFCXh3sCwmWqeF0iFetv7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
Cc: "Douglas E. Foster" <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000770a4405ac0f8062"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/utSdPc4nUEvoB1IQhNiCTMAzB_g>
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: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 16:11:11 -0000

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:39 AM Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:

> On 8/2/20 5:43 PM, Douglas E. Foster wrote:
> > As to the transparency question, it should be clear that there will be
> > no simple solution to the ML problem.
>
> Actually, there is: If your domain has users that use mailing lists,
> don't publish 'reject' or 'quarantine' policies. Generally this means to
> just use those policies for domains used for transactional email.
>
> Unfortunately we seem to be focused on very complex technical solutions
> to a misdeployment problem.
>
> -Jim
>
>
There is another solution. Move users to a separate domain from the domain
your transactional mails are sent from. You can also put users on a
separate subdomain.

There are many ways for this to be addressed without coming up with complex
standards solutions.

Michael Hammer