IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: portable e-mail, now Trying to do too much (was Re: the introduction problem, etc.)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 21 May 2022 11:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329C5C18D836 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2022 04:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MrTyhKur8-8B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2022 04:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00:e000:2bb::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4F49C18D833 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 May 2022 04:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [209.171.88.119]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7509B1F479; Sat, 21 May 2022 11:30:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 5FF141A01DC; Sat, 21 May 2022 07:30:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: portable e-mail, now Trying to do too much (was Re: the introduction problem, etc.)
In-reply-to: <20220521010251.61FC7415A1F4@ary.qy>
References: <20220521010251.61FC7415A1F4@ary.qy>
Comments: In-reply-to "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> message dated "20 May 2022 21:02:49 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7.1; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 07:30:07 -0400
Message-ID: <889051.1653132607@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0NNLjoDAQ3Ms0q2knkzDT8Z-Gfw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 11:30:17 -0000

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
    > I am no more pleased than anyone else that some large mail systems
    > misused DMARC to outsource the support costs of their security failures
    > and as an entirely predictable side-effect broke forwarding and mailing
    > lists. But given a choice between being the cranky old man yelling at
    > the cloud and adjusting my mail so it works, I'll take the latter.

My contention is that we (the ietf) should have done exactly what p=reject
said.  They don't want their mail forwarded, we shouldn't forward it.

That sucks for people who are the product (not customers) of these large mail
systems, but surely we shouldn't even waste our cranky-old-man time even
listening to such complaints.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email