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

Dave Crocker <> Mon, 14 April 2014 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8883D1A064D for <>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hO2GNSU17Jt0 for <>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82EC71A06B9 for <>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s3ELGYj1022818 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:16:37 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:14:25 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:16:44 -0000

On 4/14/2014 1:54 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
> This might have been true if:
> 2. the decision making process within a closed industry consortium with
> maybe less than 20 members, representing immense commercial power, could
> be compared to the process of consensus, that's being used within IETF.

By way of pressing a particular process issue, without commenting on any 
of the surrounding issues:

    It's certainly true that the DMARC specification has not gone 
through an IETF approval process.

    That said, the document has been subject to open review for quite 
awhile, first (and continuing) via a mailing list at and more 
recently also one hosted at the IETF.  And the handling of reviews has 
been substantive.  Again, not an IETF open process, but substantive.

    Over quite a few months, there were a number of aggressive efforts 
to solicit community suggestions and agreement about the engineering 
work or document refinement work needed on the specification.

    Nothing close to rough consensus developed for any technical or 
documentation work.  Not on the list and not on the IETF's 
dmarc list.

If the community wanted changes to the specification, it had quite a bit 
of opportunity to call for the changes and/or call for  doing such work 
in the IETF.

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking