IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DMARC and yahoo

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 22 April 2014 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 839121A003D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_SCAM_N13=3.1, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=no
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 PlXznJj-Lfi4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB881A002F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s3M3h9Gv025017 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:43:12 -0700
Message-ID: <5355E4CB.3060008@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:40:59 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Subject: Re: DMARC and yahoo
References: <DFC043AEFFD831DBABB4A5D9@[192.168.1.128]> <01P6X52G5HZM000052@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01P6X52G5HZM000052@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CdcbGuWPsocw7dzm2IQ3zu6Wkxg
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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, 22 Apr 2014 03:43:21 -0000

On 4/21/2014 6:13 PM, ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> Sorry, I'm afraid I disagree. In fact I think it's exactly the opposite.
> At a minimum we need to:
>
> (0) Document that the choice of a p=reject is inapproriate for anything
>      but a domain devoted to business transaction email and fully describe the
>      consequences of using such a policy on other sorts of domains.
> (1) Document alternatives to labeling your mixed mode domain with p=reject.
> (2) Describe the various mitigation strategies - and their consequences - for
>      agents dealing with poor DMARC policy choices, including but not limited to
>      advice to MLMs.


There already is a first-round internet-draft formulated to be a BCP 
that could be a reasonable home for including such statements:

      http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-dmarc-bcp-03

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email