Re: DMARC methods in mailman (off-topic)

Hector Santos <> Thu, 22 December 2016 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425BD12959B for <>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:12:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=hJcD3LI+; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=nJL/b6ul
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7p605bR74i-3 for <>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:12:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA3F129500 for <>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:12:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=2058; t=1482441123;; 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 (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.5) for; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:12:03 -0500
Authentication-Results:; dkim=pass header.s=tms1; adsp=pass policy=all;
Received: from ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.5) with ESMTP id 3980048484.1.3920; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:12:01 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; 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 (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.5) for; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:10:13 -0500
Received: from [] ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.5) with ESMTP id 3976477421.9.654900; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:10:12 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:12:04 -0500
From: Hector Santos <>
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 <>, Theodore Ts'o <>,
Subject: Re: DMARC methods in mailman (off-topic)
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 21:12:25 -0000


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?


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
> ?
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> 1.