Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists

Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org> Mon, 14 April 2014 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rwfranks@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31CB71A066F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 gg0MzssqexJe for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yh0-x22a.google.com (mail-yh0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43701A0473 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yh0-f42.google.com with SMTP id t59so8590981yho.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=3JgjJFYHjnFmRbAG4eI9D7MSgYIiqKbGo0hvPWKA6v0=; b=KDnQdz5UC5wFoG5SKfw6xZlGDwi8JZTSqEfbCbyJ6ohqXZJMqg9Gr75WzEkUwB2uHw 4AFoj52864MPgb2P1HlL1iwTNhmDX5BAcAese5zyRQdJBdPEdVU03t6s3oI7cie3glny yE2TEZexD1zDNTKceo4fiJtlDB2gPFYLF+guTeKFlRqqQANptuT08lBpllJQ127edJMO wsAuMP0ezJpi1Abn3aK6Cu0NZyer9fnyBl6xqCSG40RY95uGGn4GawkHbcBYtjy35Qt4 65rR38JysdppfsytR4GmBBMzTRBiPzwNHxW85ysKfYqSVlz2C0I9wHVcW0x8oeBZ50h6 i39g==
X-Received: by 10.236.32.178 with SMTP id o38mr5891426yha.119.1397507126211; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rwfranks@gmail.com
Received: by 10.170.129.143 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwb5p_V3i-NGhKJZBeO0qKHm1xiAq1E3nYkBzVUAXkRPpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAKW6Ri5f5KZyJeL7RTG2T000Qd+t61KCofNmG2JZv+nKi94Uug@mail.gmail.com> <534C0078.3070808@meetinghouse.net> <CAKW6Ri6OUmxGaBOGR2hoWpDOGWsVQ9tQ2Q9ogkT5wzFhFJLBbQ@mail.gmail.com> <534C2262.1070507@meetinghouse.net> <CAL0qLwb5p_V3i-NGhKJZBeO0qKHm1xiAq1E3nYkBzVUAXkRPpQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:24:46 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: lZLM6abBB3Lw3tfrXeqYjWiL3xc
Message-ID: <CAKW6Ri5HWMaGMa_oLKwq5fzSUzJG=jAL1qojY1i6_tibEAxq8w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158cb52d4540104f7067ba3
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1-aW83br3Ml1WF7lw6LZBy4sNLc
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:25:33 -0000

On 14 April 2014 19:03, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Miles Fidelman <
> mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> A more pragmatic, less expensive, and publicly visible expression of
>>> IETF displeasure might be to expunge all versions of the offending I-D from
>>> IETF document store and refuse to publish any subsequent version until the
>>> unwarranted claims made for it are retracted.
>>>
>>> To be effective, that needs to be done now, while the iron is still hot;
>>> not after the usual 3-month email debate about the diplomatic niceties.
>>>
>>>  The later, accompanied with a strong statement about the limits of
>> DMARC, and the flaws in its deployment - might not be a bad start.
>>
>
> What real-world effect is this supposed to have, apart from setting a very
> dangerous precedent?
>
>
1)  Invalidates the inappropriate document citations on DMARC site.

2)  Publicly refutes any claim that this is an IETF standardisation effort.


Robust action in defence of IETF reputation is possibly a precedent worth
setting.