IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Suggestion: can we test DEMARC deployment with a mailing list?

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 06 May 2014 00:23 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 AB7341A01B9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 17:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 jnNvAou4ZAsp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 17:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8264C1A0045 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 17:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1300; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1399335810; x=1400545410; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=KG46seG9qb4VYw2BIlKHkKYRvGUecGH9NMmtAOxp49Y=; b=aAZ5iBAOz3rFL1j+FeqwWXFGOLYDoPcMqSDD9/+8A0+rG6n0G4FEBXDQ 4sN/0r9gUTzyM2kYF2qb2YpZSzLfXAi2nbZ5H8ByWmAfqMml4IF2pNZR4 GQhUhqEmpfTlJbHUdvqxcQ4lwcJddxkskI0zEGSFpkbFuCOmgkGMqHw01 E=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjkFALUqaFOtJA2E/2dsb2JhbABZgwaBJ8RPgRwWdIIlAQEBAwFuCwULAgEIDgouMiUCBA4FDogrCM1XF45SB4MqgRUBA4RaA4xFgTmGWZJ0gzSCLw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,992,1389744000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="319558832"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 May 2014 00:23:27 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s460NRJX011391 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 6 May 2014 00:23:27 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.99]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 5 May 2014 19:23:26 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Suggestion: can we test DEMARC deployment with a mailing list?
Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] Suggestion: can we test DEMARC deployment with a mailing list?
Thread-Index: AQHPZjEeOHoDyq9mZ0azxe/jQ5CmNJszCbcAgAAAgIA=
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 00:23:26 +0000
Message-ID: <1BB8A9AB-C7C1-4959-B8C2-C649AB4EA19D@cisco.com>
References: <28671EE8-A8B9-40D1-9268-527A8FFC34AD@cisco.com> <53682B10.2070000@meetinghouse.net>
In-Reply-To: <53682B10.2070000@meetinghouse.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.118]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2B488C93-0663-4D42-94D2-B8EAD4A1529C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5tFIODBvM6PVvnw18IcJ42fTpp4
Cc: IETF <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: Tue, 06 May 2014 00:23:34 -0000

On May 5, 2014, at 5:21 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:

> Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> We have been having a fairly extended discussion, much of which seems hypothetical - “I don’t like DEMARC because I am worried that ... with mailing lists”. I wonder if we could take a moment to try it and see what happens?
>> 
>> 
> Ummm..... yahoo changed their dmarc policy to p=reject, lots of mailing lists broke.  What experiment is it that you think we need to run?

I guess we’re running it. I was hoping to avoid the “everything around broke” part.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email