Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 04 November 2016 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 4026B129592 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 sFUIj75eVK0l for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C9E7129598 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF66F20183 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:58:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25339637A7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:43:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6vHdt75NFKW3s6xOzLcq=jmVAHDPX0tjLRdGpYSTP2cYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <678C2FBA-A661-4556-A300-5C08562B5F8A@iii.ca> <29429.1478113235@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CABa8R6vHdt75NFKW3s6xOzLcq=jmVAHDPX0tjLRdGpYSTP2cYA@mail.gmail.com>
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: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:43:02 -0400
Message-ID: <7301.1478274182@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3PCeYd7BDSRTeGYXrvnW9vdBah4>
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: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 15:43:05 -0000

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> wrote:
    > With the understanding that my email is unlikely to be received by some
    > of those having issues...

    > Let us assume that those who specify p=REJECT have a good reason for
    > doing so, and that after 2-3 years, they are unlikely to change back.

    > Let us also assume that the members of these organizations who are
    > participating in IETF may or may not have any power over whether their
    > admins have decided to be p=REJECT.

    > And let us assume that we want these folks to participate in IETF.

I agree with the statements, and I want people to participate.

    > I will assume that if you're not willing to stipulate to the above,
    > then you don't actually want a solution.

There is another option: the people who live in a p=reject policy regime
could use a different email address for IETF participation.  It's not a
choice I like very much though.

    > The middle man, ietf, can work around this today.

I can hold my nose and live with this solution.
I've been begging for *A* solution for three years now.

I want to put out that we are hacking a middle box to solve a problem with
end-points, and that whatever we do will become the "standard"

    > mailman should also know how to tell the difference between a message
    > specific policy bounce, and particular DMARC bounces, and should apply
    > different heuristics to handling them. I have no idea if that existing
    > in any version of mailman or is a planned feature.

It is not.

It would be nice if the need to fund this work had been considered when the
p=reject policy code was being written at the various places that wanted it.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-