Re: DMARC and

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 13 August 2016 02:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A6912B023 for <>; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
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 sYC3I4U91VG9 for <>; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06CF412B01B for <>; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ti13so1344180pac.0 for <>; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CWG5cPaDkpCqmM8S7WeulPfH3VpBMYV3N07E6UxKjEY=; b=lb75GYuNfo+C3aCl7XrDtjz7MfaXyCQoEimWus/t+5jfykOsD1t2nF5EdVq2dGgb06 j+NVDu2fNQTYGx+a68gT3o305BEQGGQuu/dyG2jLsNY+oZRUdAwPgj/JrMmhTlIOwd4F 9xFLjv+cpco4wIlSNI+PwtZot4ZNI4ToaFDz58W1qEpJ5EaFtZrzeAVVHIvhwg1arvQ0 UsiSBhWL2ezWIQI+9j1OiEn0r5bkWXWdcNRdcvvuynZDwS4kqJDLclQwv30dHsMy9b78 4nkTF537r0DaHukPezS2pIYJnOb7uXVJFsA1dBRWjTba+OkkeUnmxk0UvNquDphYDQJS pxtA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CWG5cPaDkpCqmM8S7WeulPfH3VpBMYV3N07E6UxKjEY=; b=LAGqd0EJqf/t9XXzhcuTox66COusPtazYebtyY1Hf8U/jsLd/Vgf5xdilhKkRVqoJl /SGUK8KSCdTn5gt3rUTXqYUXID/dQ43WDOtVsVfq1qxRRmLbV4umZyKMsflcRMrqV40F nsE3LPYaUYfaQQRkfmqZJIKph9baBH2GOq8rGNGSz6RpP4Dkoq5Ok4QOHtLa/HacD88h +8nAcO4zpJ3HOtJoWHZsgr3tyr9bO4qAJ/eaCI7EYcIQBgPz7iGmmJqmLT0yX+XfLOH7 rcRFROLVeydkbuymx5VYuFiKbGrCyEMAQ/q28PG7Zco0ErkUGjppGtcegGOHVQNGOdMc roxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoout5tC4ESz95xzq5ZKxUgxIvIZobHdNIBuUTt0fv6dec4V4GXzBW9wq0JdlunGKDMA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id qo10mr32758508pab.135.1471057014058; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:5003:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:5003:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id j21sm16074083pfj.75.2016. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: DMARC and
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 14:57:02 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 02:56:57 -0000

On 13/08/2016 10:23, Andrew G. Malis wrote:

> I couldn’t agree more.

Yes. It's been months and we need to know ASAP which of the various remediations
the IETF mailing list service will apply. We all know that there's no ideal
solution but practicality requires something to be done now. Mail via IETF
lists being rejected or quarantined by mainstream mail services is not OK.
It's actually quite hard to discover if the mail service one is using is
rejecting messages.

I know that rewriting breaks some peoples' procmail setups, and I sympathise
with that, but it's a matter of choosing the least bad solution:

On 13/08/2016 11:15, John Levine wrote:
> There are DMARC workarounds that are more work but suck less.
> See


> Cheers,
> Andy
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 6:20 PM, =JeffH <>
> wrote:
>> Regardless of details, applying some sort of remediation to
>> is becoming more pressing IMV -- I am noticing that
>> email, sent from (p=quarantine; pct=100;) via IETF
>> mailing lists, is not being delivered to my inbox at all.
>> Also, the same is occurring for some email from
>> (p=quarantine; pct=30;). The same is true for email I might send via my @
>> persona.
>> The W3C mailing list manager (MLM) is apparently configured to do
>> rfc5322.from field re-writing which seems to ameliorate the DMARC-MLM
>> issues (in my experience, at least), and it would be helpful if the IETF
>> would take similar measures.
>> thanks,
>> =JeffH