Re: DMARC methods in mailman (off-topic)

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Thu, 22 December 2016 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
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 425BD12959B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:12:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=hJcD3LI+; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=nJL/b6ul
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 7p605bR74i-3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:12:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from secure.winserver.com (ftp.catinthebox.net [76.245.57.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA3F129500 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:12:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=2058; t=1482441123; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=/v+21EfiKKfFDJW61s3uk/QsbWc=; b=hJcD3LI+7aclbSSCLL//E3ORgpqaX+dPpvGVEUTXiSeZWo4HM3JufBhP8dB6Qz zeApUMbNwbWxDiVP0MIi1FI6v6XraNMs3U2FSsvplKQhM/YiBTQ0ofBI8Eo+reHu U7Pwipu7RIbaEDeGwwlH/iHvQ02at5HeVqvj1ZKj9hDE8=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.5) for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:12:03 -0500
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; adsp=pass policy=all author.d=isdg.net asl.d=beta.winserver.com;
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.5) with ESMTP id 3980048484.1.3920; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:12:01 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=2058; t=1482441013; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=9WYpzIE dONmew5ynHiT6WEN9rHuis8MGEjtE5RA9ueI=; b=nJL/b6ulzQfVRR2/aLqEAP+ BwZi+TchwY8QVaMRcQ0I8AJvfZKpTju938a3grgPjlBq9mp7d9LaAJtmlYJuaR1D lbx8OdJWOkTfY4QylPzrgCGZvDENDayiTVYLoDhIEVvLk6Q0JBHJK79aAxcBW6UG dUsdFWixgYkorluyxkxg=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.5) for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:10:13 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([99.121.5.8]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.5) with ESMTP id 3976477421.9.654900; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:10:12 -0500
Message-ID: <585C41A4.6030008@isdg.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:12:04 -0500
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: DMARC methods in mailman (off-topic)
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20161222061125.0adacfa0@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20161222061125.0adacfa0@elandsys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/18fF5p3ZSQ7dEn1m3ko-W-z56x8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 21:12:25 -0000

Hi,

Is that the new modus operandi within the IETF, that extremely weak, 
poorly engineered Informational Docs can be fast tracked as a 
"standard" in the IETF?

I hope not. Especially when a proposed standard ADSP rfc5617 was 
officially abandoned for the 100% same issues and problems its 
replacement "Super ADSP" a.k.a. DMARC has.   So if we abandoned ADSP 
for reason X and DMARC suffers the same exact X problem, shouldn't it 
be abandoned as well?

-- 
HLS

On 12/22/2016 11:09 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Ted,
> At 07:12 21-12-2016, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> Given that the DMARC "specifcation" isn't even being treated as a
>> standard that must be obeyed in all of its particulars by its
>> proponents --- the fact that this is being used by its propoonents to
>> twist mailers of the IETF --- a standards body --- into knots because
>> it is enforcement is random and *not* standardized is, quite frankly,
>> amazing to me.
>
> According to a blog article written by Mr Woodcraft, Senior Technical
> Adviser, Government Digital Service, DMARC is "almost an internet
> standard listed as 'Informational' at the The Internet Engineering
> Task Force (IETF), although it's already widely used particularly by
> the larger, consumer-facing email providers".  There was an
> announcement from the Paypal Product and Ecosystem Security Team in
> which there is the following: "the Internet Engineering Task Force
> (IETF) published RFC 7489 for Domain-based Message Authentication
> Reporting and Conformance (DMARC)".  According to the RFC Editor the
> specification was published in the Independent Stream [1], i.e. the
> specification was not been published by the IETF.
>
> The current discussion, as the previous ones, is about whether there
> is a problem affecting IETF mailing list subscribers, and if so, what
> to do about it.  Is that similar to the one discussed in the thread at
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/24/794 ?
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> 1. https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/
>
>