Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions (fwd) Jo-Philipp Wich: [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions

Brian E Carpenter <> Sun, 18 December 2016 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B0E129673 for <>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 11:20:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bNa6H-mlogA9 for <>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 11:20:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A43C129572 for <>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 11:20:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 189so20231264pfz.3 for <>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 11:20:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LHpPIO/Ygdwh6NhgIlXHJNg0hf0IQrlHBDej9WoNRfQ=; b=KjqRag5i30eROVJL5TFUnnD7cr519cyGMec4+sgC5+vnn5pTwaRJQ17fqtXiooMITh gw9tKVPXMvcEnKFy6BpL2nyvBBGkJ4gXQMNCwqc2Rzaa0uG7LCQrfViueYW1EMErgXgk oyWOHkxfCUKN/6pwvhh0UgUOFGNSyabm3v5vXqaOixWV6/FhgS98EosMIm1XnLNrISm4 rG1H05e8aZAnga9bDAytz22DgCIaSSm7Ky2vvgr4/urubVihiH7JXrEcyBsiRT2h+uw+ W0v07r0RAGJWMzL3WHsxaTSPiq3lcM9aoG+QHopuBRyAvkaZZt4JRVPqR6eleBDCg6aL UFZw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LHpPIO/Ygdwh6NhgIlXHJNg0hf0IQrlHBDej9WoNRfQ=; b=phSaKRZoTwSrHxxf0iFl10APSvcsGDkNEuZvbNnFIaVxSKIkN2dmZdd2CgxLjM6rqj hdUj47qqqspPxMAQ5mW6gBerTCnk7dgJC2wAhQLPCJGGCuRAsWntlJ9KPRL5NjMj9s4R 3MKjtXzqpMB32cFH5MV3j5GujwRcfBXvQLL5N5qFA3+2ZjJAKRHehuDgd1MxCcMB7Eg6 zgHCJcWUxSpdIQXyth1HNAgYT4qSKvr9kAuw4ajaXtAesoaVVzjyHj5L/sW/OXKcI+8a GjAuHivHedVdHsQR+pRsC433hQhe67OWoHsvK2iHz2Y+kFRR6UiR/TpUCLq5dUl85hbf u1/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC021NjiAKVy2ougQqO1tua/yzoddQkh7+vIAdRFfV5jZnTGBIMYaklYQzugmTGdGag==
X-Received: by with SMTP id g12mr11810602pfj.54.1482088814407; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 11:20:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7145:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:7145:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id y6sm25967373pge.16.2016. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 18 Dec 2016 11:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions (fwd) Jo-Philipp Wich: [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions
References: <> <> <> <> <A087FD45F16AB4DEB6C520F0@PSB> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 08:20:11 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
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, 18 Dec 2016 19:20:17 -0000

On 18/12/2016 23:15, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Yes.  We might end up having to consider whether to attribute 
> semantics to the <display-name> as a way to solve the problem.  Let's 
> assume that 20% of IETF mailing list subscribers use a "p=reject" 
> domain name in the "From:" field and that they are no longer allowed 
> to post messages to the mailing list because of the policy advertised 
> by that sending domain.  What should the mailing list moderator do in 
> response to complaints from those subscribers?

Send them a canned message stating that the only solution available
to them is changing to a different From address that does not have
this issue. What else can they do?


On 19/12/2016 06:05, Dave Crocker wrote:
> I believe some mailing lists have adjusted to detection of DMARC (maybe 
> just when p=reject?) for a given author by making author From: field 
> changes /only/ for such authors.  They don't make changes when mail is 
> from non-DMARC authors.

If ARC fails to solve the problem, I am certain the IETF will have no
choice but to do this (for both p=reject and p=quarantine, I suspect).