Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large open-source lists

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Miles Fidelman 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Is it perhaps also incumbent on the folks promulgating DMARC (and
>     its predecessors, and its sure-to-be successors) to work
>     cooperatively with mailing list developers, rather than taking the
>     position "nope, we break mailing lists, not our problem?"
>
>
> The DMARC proponents did engage mailman.   Version 2.1.16 includes 
> support for a setting that makes the operation of the list 
> DMARC-friendly, though likely in a way some people will find 
> unpalatable.  Either way, it was not done entirely in a vacuum.
>
>
>     I'm kind of coming to the conclusion that what we need to be
>     looking at is defining an SMTP extension that addresses BOTH sets
>     of concerns - and doing so in a cooperative manner that engages
>     not just the community behind DKIM and DMARC, but also the
>     developers and operators of mailman, sympa, majordomo, listserv -
>     and ideally the sendmail, postfix, exim, qmail community.
>
>     Dare I suggest that this calls for an IETF working group?
>
>
> I mentioned in another thread that the DMARC people did come to the 
> IETF to ask for a working group to complete development of the work on 
> the standards track.  This request was denied on the grounds that 
> DMARC was essentially already done, and thus the IETF had nothing 
> engineering-wise to contribute.  There were also too few people that 
> were not already DMARC proponents that would commit to working on it.
>
> (And as I said on that other thread, I'm happy to stand corrected if 
> I've mischaracterized any of that.)
>
> -MSK


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra