Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists Sat, 19 April 2014 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CD321A0019 for <>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.174
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ANbgLleTryG4 for <>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5841A0007 for <>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> for; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> (original mail from for; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 08:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:09:16 -0400" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Miles Fidelman <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 15:30:56 -0000

> > I've been saying from the start that this was a failure on the IETF's
> > part.

> > It's just not the kind of failure you think it was.

> Any suggestions on how we might approach making changes?  I guess
> overall architecture, process, and policy are IAB's purview - but how
> does one get folks to pay attention - I haven't seen any IAB members
> commenting here, for example. (Note: My own IETF involvement has always
> been one step removed - mostly in my days at BBN, where I sat next to a
> lot of active IETF participants, but spent more of my time on system
> design and application of protocols.  My direct standards involvement
> has always seemed to end up in other forums - mostly military and
> security stuff that ran under funny venues. These days, I'm more on the
> tail end of being effected by such things as this current debacle -
> which are kind of motivating me to get more seriously involved.)

I've been thinking about it, and I think this needs to be addressed on at least
two different fronts. First, I've come to believe that the IETF needs to say
something, in  some capacity, about the political aspects of the DMARC
situation specifically.

I also think the time has come to try and address the more general problem
of misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the status of various
documents. This probably needs to be addressed through a combination of
automatic labeling as well as some explicit statements here and there.

And this really needs to be spearheaded by the IESG, not the IAB. I hope the
IESG is already considering taking action. If not, they should be.