Re: DMARC and

S Moonesamy <> Sun, 14 August 2016 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4237612D761 for <>; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 10:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.037
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=x+Xg9vWG; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=RhRa3uob
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bVzpnHXo91Sj for <>; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 10:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48A712D1D7 for <>; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 10:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7EHQt3o002944 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 14 Aug 2016 10:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1471195628; x=1471282028; bh=ezqEDUcw9HH5Kli8ybHgMNy4HJwMpQzhSxjoWUfwVX8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=x+Xg9vWGCAb+1jgym5VlmrFbSi8YcEZuQJbicu5yd+2pNHAsoWuKDc5VpqENwjugn Uy/SoUDvCdb439dPRb76E9kB18V0d1xZgxHrAwPH+l53Lh4jXXYsgB164fjN59fGSr n2i3jGifK/GIpIZjpX/+foQYU7bNalJIlS8pkHRs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1471195628; x=1471282028;; bh=ezqEDUcw9HH5Kli8ybHgMNy4HJwMpQzhSxjoWUfwVX8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=RhRa3uob3kwYh81q34aJWHmz2xdj6Cci0dHQTeUmjkshZBXl56XKWXBBy29ZCXA8m RdKGIzRFBrUH6/BkymJOK7W5g7Dwu8ZFlklbLNCC3fhhbUe25TqJkypWb/wKU9cT2u LoDYymjpGoyKWYCIhBjVchNWha+zywdDhZPsrHOk=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 10:23:54 -0700
To: =JeffH <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: DMARC and
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Carlos Pignataro \(cpignata\)" <>, Christian Huitema <>
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: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 17:27:22 -0000

Hi Jeff,

For information about the facilitators experiment, please see

At 10:20 12-08-2016, =JeffH wrote:
>Regardless of details, applying some sort of remediation to 
> is becoming more pressing IMV -- I am noticing that 
>email, sent from (p=quarantine; pct=100;) via IETF 
>mailing lists, is not being delivered to my inbox at all. 
>Also, the same is occurring for some email from 
>(p=quarantine; pct=30;). The same is true for email I might send via 
>my persona.
>The W3C mailing list manager (MLM) is apparently configured to do 
>rfc5322.from field re-writing which seems to ameliorate the 
>DMARC-MLM issues (in my experience, at least), and it would be 
>helpful if the IETF would take similar measures.

There was a message [1] from Russ Housley on this thread in which he 
mentioned that: "Mailman has an option we can enable to force 
DMARC-spoofing sender rewriting of all outgoing Mailman email.  If we 
enable that option, the From: field rewriting and could be disruptive 
in unknown ways".  It was also mentioned that "SPF/DMARC are taken 
into account" for the scoring of incoming email to

S. Moonesamy