Re: DMARC and

Michael Richardson <> Sun, 14 August 2016 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AADBC12D5A3 for <>; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 15:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.148
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2FvFh38T6uyr for <>; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 15:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBD4012B00F for <>; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 15:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E712009E; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 18:31:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D0E639DC; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 18:20:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: =JeffH <>
Subject: Re: DMARC and
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 18:20:37 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Michael Richardson <lsuc!nrcaer!julie!>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:20:42 -0000

From: Michael Richardson <lsuc!nrcaer!julie!>

I agree strongly with you: the IETF needs to do something in some direction.

That something could be to properly reject email with a DMARC policy that
does not permit forwarding.  That would piss off an awful lot of IETF
participants, but it would be simple, since it requires no protocol
changes, just social changes.

=JeffH <> wrote:
    > Regardless of details, applying some sort of remediation to
    > is becoming more pressing IMV -- I am noticing that
    > email, sent from (p=quarantine; pct=100;) via IETF
    > mailing lists, is not being delivered to my inbox at
    > all. Also, the same is occurring for some email from
    > (p=quarantine; pct=30;). The same is true for email I might send via my
    > persona.

It seems that email is operating exactly as DMARC intends :-)

    > The W3C mailing list manager (MLM) is apparently configured to do
    > rfc5322.from field re-writing which seems to ameliorate the DMARC-MLM
    > issues (in my experience, at least), and it would be helpful if the
    > IETF would take similar measures.

But, that would also render the From: field meaningless.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-