IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to...

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Sun, 04 May 2014 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D041A00AE for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 May 2014 08:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.653
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 zSbvTrvl1sl9 for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 May 2014 08:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30FC41A00A8 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 May 2014 08:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P7EMAKPZM8001KJ7@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-822@ietf.org; Sun, 4 May 2014 08:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1399216407; bh=6n06kU7B2hI7n4jg5sMsWiA2LeQnOYJwMa0DujbpwnY=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=fB2fEGwTjGD97TQYhDexOdW0O5EItOA8vZm+unDPmJDypjQ0kXvwUTNy3VT1gplia YdWWZAgIibdbiVMrq8dUwESRRxd1DnGNV9BI95quvH/AG3/dZ2gR8oA+XVyyDrMNdR Xz53aghra0Z9srHVMPKZeaenHOmROkppZpsGc1P4=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="iso-8859-1"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P76OE0L1O0000052@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sun, 4 May 2014 08:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01P7EMAI2KGG000052@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 08:08:06 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 04 May 2014 14:08:18 +0000" <20140504140818.1545.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <5da0fca6-7eb3-4db6-8a71-16fce69e67e6@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <20140504140818.1545.qmail@joyce.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/82cd-v8p68ag_PNXXWSon6S6vhc
Cc: ietf-822@ietf.org, arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to...
X-BeenThere: ietf-822@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format \[RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322\]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-822/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 15:18:40 -0000

> In article <5da0fca6-7eb3-4db6-8a71-16fce69e67e6@gulbrandsen.priv.no> you write:
> >I may be stupid here, but why does dmarc even apply to messages with a
> >List-Id? Right now I can't think of any case where it makes sense to use
> >both List-Id and DMARC.

> What do you think would happen if a List-ID: tag was a free pass
> through spam filters?

When did DMARC become the only anti-spam mechanism in the world? Nowhere did
Arnt say that messages containing a list-id should be exempted from all forms
of AS/AV processing, only that DMARC in particular isn't useful in this case.

FWIW, I agree with Arnt on this one. In fact the case has yet to be made that
DKIM-based whitelisting of list mail is more than a nice-to-have; per-user
whitelisting on the basis of List-id alone along with the usual checks for
blatent viruses and whatnot seems to work pretty well.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email