Re: [dmarc-ietf] list history, Signaling MLMs

[John R Levine <[e-mail]>]

> I'm assuming that the "long list of stinky possible workarounds" are the 
> existing "whatever" mitigations, and rewriting seems to be acceptable 
> enough as a mitigation to convince large [enterprise] mail systems to 
> move forward with restrictive policies. ...

I think you are greatly overestimating the connection between cause and 
effect here.  The people setting the policies have no idea what effect 
they have on their users, and to the degree they do, they do not care. 
IETFers at large organizations who support their IETF work, and that have 
p=reject, tell me they've told the IT departments that the policy is 
making it hard for them to get their work done and the response is either 
"duh?" or "not our problem."

> I intentionally published > "p=quarantine pct=0" specifically to find 
> the MLMs that implemented no mitigations, weighed that against what I 
> knew about which receivers enforced non-mitigated mail, and then made a 
> judgment call to move forward.

It sure would be nice if people at other organizations were as concerned 
about the quality of mail service to their users.  But noooooo.

> I believe Wei suggested that we need to find a better "whatever" (in the 
> form of an alternative to SPF and DKIM that works with mailing lists) ...

I would like a pony, too.  But ARC is as good as we have now and after a 
decade of beating our heads against the wall, I don't think we're going to 
find anything better.  I've suggested a bunch of things that would make 
lists' life better, and nobody is interested:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-may-forward/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dkim-conditional/

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly