What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 15 April 2014 01:45 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 58C161A06D0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Waote6sdAECw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x230.google.com (mail-pb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9AB1A06CE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id md12so8851634pbc.21 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Wi3SzLfi3IYFV4OW6LFRL3TxynKxmOMMeTJUNm1dItg=; b=sSVTYD6hFwG2MyP0YAx+LRjbTCZEYHZQVWjB/bJwxychnCyX4m6lSE2FP+B4VcKZYF 3YQfheOzsRDSwa5KgioG4kW6USofiujFDB1HA2Rt5LY1+NQC3RUYOfsx2Ui3EvUKvU/V A7teqFgRdWvBCP6KFu/8HUQorwYzF4gTSZzEpTcEQ1vCAYk0Ds3jPgu7R7X8qqVUp3Xb p41jKMWLHYGiy+QIClN0uqagLAUoufhBk8Ezog6nnFES+6vDhUtE28xZLj8xdJheym3O Cy2H5x7qUH3RjWXZQhTPxmZYgPh1IKIwtNoFkwtA7IFJw6b8/OuMJyjGdi9+A2hlRzwk an8A==
X-Received: by 10.68.202.230 with SMTP id kl6mr47804127pbc.55.1397526317153; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (172.200.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.200.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y4sm36574110pbk.76.2014.04.14.18.45.15 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <534C8F2B.9060903@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:45:15 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAKW6Ri5f5KZyJeL7RTG2T000Qd+t61KCofNmG2JZv+nKi94Uug@mail.gmail.com> <534C0078.3070808@meetinghouse.net> <CAKW6Ri6OUmxGaBOGR2hoWpDOGWsVQ9tQ2Q9ogkT5wzFhFJLBbQ@mail.gmail.com> <534C2262.1070507@meetinghouse.net> <CAL0qLwb5p_V3i-NGhKJZBeO0qKHm1xiAq1E3nYkBzVUAXkRPpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKW6Ri5HWMaGMa_oLKwq5fzSUzJG=jAL1qojY1i6_tibEAxq8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwaik1ft+AcACoc+kvKtCRt_gGvM6ov7c2yj_Uwyy3drNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKW6Ri5_=GyOQijZMM+mqAoaEQzePGysBy9WVjN9yHO1zf3d2w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKW6Ri5_=GyOQijZMM+mqAoaEQzePGysBy9WVjN9yHO1zf3d2w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7kn-hvl54DL95n8hD635_7eWvcY
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, 15 Apr 2014 01:45:21 -0000

I thought that standard operating procedure in the IT industry
was: if you roll something out and it causes serious breakage to
some of your users, you roll it back as soon as possible.

Why hasn't Yahoo rolled back its 'reject' policy by now?

Regards
   Brian