Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-15.txt> (Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows) to Informational RFC

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 21 May 2016 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A67CB12D53B; Sat, 21 May 2016 16:23:56 -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 dRfoLTk-x1tW; Sat, 21 May 2016 16:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55EAF12D539; Sat, 21 May 2016 16:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id rw9so14316211pab.2; Sat, 21 May 2016 16:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P+cP5ed3lm/8oU7epjfpQ1NPvsXRoaBSMBkCeDYgDIc=; b=Kp4ybeyOCOxgiH6Qpx56R1aWVqSJyDEChuLlXjAeKapuIXHThzW+MX8TcxEQjX0IS6 pCYq9Qcuf3UaZrdLHTRrMMLGYS/hp94qlrvc2DPuqCL+LTnRwbzCtoiGP7A0jZgDhPpa b8pEJj5sXDLmGZLgVQVOYnaUJkRNRWgyTHzkan7zwKyDA35QOcKa0nRAW6/uAuNHdUGT pOMoVQ0Im7Y6g0EVNSvsITTX2D7kZ0WUZkxSra66q/9+BShcQGYuxKL2OzgYmFNmRvrk nzwtb1oLIMWyr9Wivq2tJkrRJa3PLSri8vR/t9OiDqculJiVM6UQuEWDnU8vgI+gkaP1 izhw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=P+cP5ed3lm/8oU7epjfpQ1NPvsXRoaBSMBkCeDYgDIc=; b=T2ARJKrjYosdlK/e79jg47hHDn2bj0JlCm39LhItq7bmPRTo+0cRAa5X7NBRNTiWEB kAqyocrPOW90COevSu69ekcDGdpuDA0+GTe6emZKQmU2v/5DgIcRuSAECky/woAkkesh fqSaDh3eVoKaI4kH3vHn4YAtiAcFDTAO8vmzheUIuIcBTcXYrotYEoAIQPke2zT9xlgM roWIs4A6oZnJY7fHAIPFYulYt2IEmq4s5Oc9GSUtHwWXxff4kroK5gbogaQbJ+V9m0Tb WRJbw7Hurwb6cm1CqP+2/0ig6LHlNgANEBvcmY1GbCc7Sx5WjgHoewIXc5BmdrHlFFVd hQhg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXB+njoKnKDGmM/JeFkD++ODE6ZY9qBQTqHy/R14pHPkOD5hsRshH9TDSYzG932JQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id nc10mr15780100pab.98.1463872132236; Sat, 21 May 2016 16:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:4c59:1:64c5:f48:b5f6:2567? ([2406:e007:4c59:1:64c5:f48:b5f6:2567]) by with ESMTPSA id r73sm36310586pfi.4.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 21 May 2016 16:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-15.txt> (Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows) to Informational RFC
References: <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 11:08:47 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,,, Ned Freed <>,
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, 21 May 2016 23:23:57 -0000

This is useful.

>  Mailing Lists
>    [RFC6377] provides some guidance on using DKIM with Mailing lists.
>    The following mitigation techniques can be used to ease
>    interoperability issues with DMARC and Mailing lists:

It should probably be indicated whether these techniques would be applied
to all messages, or only to messages sent from domains with a DMARC
policy other than "p=none". (I prefer the latter.)
>    o  Configuring the MLM to "wrap" the message in a MIME message/rfc822
>       part and to send as the Mailing List email address.  Many email
>       clients (as of the publication of this document), especially
>       mobile clients, have difficulty reading such messages and this is
>       not expected to change soon.

This seems like a quite elegant solution. I'm very surprised by the second
sentence - are these clients that have difficulty with many Content-Types
or is it a specific issue for message/rfc822?