Re: Realistic responses to DMARC

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 19 December 2016 00:01 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EFA61294B4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 16:01:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=eYGtdjCR; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=bVpx5Oti
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 nFdaXKJZnx8v for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 16:01:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A51D12940E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 16:01:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 52460 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2016 00:01:35 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=cceb.5857235f.k1612; bh=o/rwMUy+rKjEmyY+XakZOPmzx1uGDLASNMmpnmpp1kk=; b=eYGtdjCRP8/hWLGMF7cs01pgra5cWAzx53wzlSggYgvZv8VPZk6AlsnZl6u2+Tb5maNK0uzkoz/99WlYPr9wjGKVpZkmGMiUjAMsnJnT6Mo9D3aGMnEX6FiNwfWbaHpT9JTBSAEimpsD0/eXfIQJ0qAKWk1lmlHqJYmCdUEZDeqwzWMAqHFesJ1pojgXgULF5+bAAVBfXw8cf6y80CIe8+dE7ibQSnBYI1Y6wpjlFomUQ2CB5/rlXgAZQqn3Lf0w
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=cceb.5857235f.k1612; bh=o/rwMUy+rKjEmyY+XakZOPmzx1uGDLASNMmpnmpp1kk=; b=bVpx5OtiTcE5Ovoqo3KoBYJWyolmBSuXLejnmoQRvF01NmmCnoPMjZK89ADTGC1aex67Wt7lhwy5mKMHSVjyqcKXQ3giUYZATMS65NNSb9IQRby7SLS2GjCGV2dUCteIvz4RFr+0s7KDW61pB3l+1SnfoQS+EDatizoQbkFyv3vA2Nu0JtxceQuz6X8af/0x4AVWk6EpI45o/3xYHus7Tyi5jRrU/CQg05kYeXnSF/BpvNI3kdWNxceuoi05+SUg
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 19 Dec 2016 00:01:35 -0000
Date: 18 Dec 2016 19:01:29 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612181857510.19758@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: tytso@mit.edu
Subject: Re: Realistic responses to DMARC
In-Reply-To: <499b8679-37bc-36eb-3ac8-9d99570f42df@dcrocker.net>
References: <9AD6AAD6812D3B9F8379226B@PSB> <20161218022823.8779.qmail@ary.lan> <20161218055834.he6gkupqp5xqlvml@thunk.org> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612180101460.14297@ary.qy> <20161218065905.5g66jgkvtckydmry@thunk.org> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612180215450.14970@ary.qy> <20161218222427.7phtcg7mhpypcwnb@thunk.org> <499b8679-37bc-36eb-3ac8-9d99570f42df@dcrocker.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8ndZU-2TWkOt9H-DgNWWigdGHqQ>
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:01:32 -0000

> Ted, you are ascribing more concern about this by the providers than I'm 
> seeing.

Having talked to many of the same people at large mail providers that Dave 
has, and also done some policy work for more than one of them* I have to 
agree.  Google has on the order of a billion mail users, and the other 
large providers have hundreds of millions.  The idea that they would weigh 
those users against at most a few thousand people doing Linux or the IETF 
just isn't plausible.

R's,
John

* - expert witness stuff