IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Google.com hops on the DMARC bandwagon

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Tue, 29 April 2014 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.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 DD2701A0997 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_110=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 Y6t3RaDkJI4t for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B8A81A0991 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P782BVV2I80007XH@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P77SH5U06O000054@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01P782BTLB96000054@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:36:34 -0700
Subject: Re: Google.com hops on the DMARC bandwagon
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:19:47 +0200" <53602583.4060003@sonnection.nl>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404291512550.3309@joyce.lan> <CAL9jLaZhoWkaKpscm4YA4F-kSpt9tvjhax8f6soJzaY-Q0SsnA@mail.gmail.com> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0507D5DE7D@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <536011BD.3050704@meetinghouse.net> <536012FC.9020803@att.com> <536015F7.2070100@sonnection.nl> <01P780Q4IQVA000054@mauve.mrochek.com> <53602583.4060003@sonnection.nl>
To: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" <R.E.Sonneveld@sonnection.nl>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9l_CdDrVENbnLzDqOKzWuUMTO5w
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
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, 29 Apr 2014 22:42:12 -0000

> > No, because those postings will bounce, and cause those users to get
> > unsubscribed from the list.

> But in this case, we're talking about the p=quarantine policy that
> Google published for google.com... No bouncing (and hence no automatic
> unsubscription, unless a receiver interprets p=quarantine as 'please
> reject').

Fair point. My observation about the appropriate acronym stands, however.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email