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

[John Levine <[e-mail]>]

It appears that Jesse Thompson  <[e-mail]> said:
>Why not turn off rewriting on this list, as an experiment? The hypothesis is that everyone will switch to Gmail and not tilt
>at IETF, but instead they will tilt at their domain owners.

That's how we got here. A lot of IETF participants use mail systems
that enforce DMARC policy (notably including Gmail) and we were
getting a lot of complaints about lost mail, and a lot of work with
people getting bounced off lists who list managers had to resubscribe.
Barry says that even with our mitigations, we still have the latter problem.

We went through a long list of possible workarounds including several
kinds of rewrites and several kinds of message wrapping. They all
stauk but the one we picked, per-address rewrites for domains with
DMARC policies, stunk less. The option we picked requires more control
over the MTA than typical mailman or sympa installations have, so most
people's options are worse.

I still don't understand the point of this argument. We all agree that
DMARC causes damage to interoperability, but some people appear to be
saying we should ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist because DMARC
has other advantages. The honest thing to do is to describe both. 

Nobody thinks we're going to get Yahoo to turn off p=reject (they said
at the time they turned it on that they don't care about mailing
lists) but I think there's some hope we can get large mail systems to
be more aware of the damage and use ARC or whatever to mitigate it.

R's,
John