Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 05 November 2016 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE2E7129721 for <>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 11:52:25 -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 9OWKdy6Ir_kq for <>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 11:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A10771296CC for <>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 11:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i88so69364669pfk.2 for <>; Sat, 05 Nov 2016 11:52:24 -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=dyp8xgp8QvGwQ6tUqi4uDFsSgQRu4zPQDOn5gnVbM9A=; b=YlZ7Adw4whiCLGA//92oMFls71tuaZTUod3dR3cLT0po9YIjHwXoelKNlGIE7NeaGk jM0ONGZggFf/idZse8w8Se1rPDX+IlS9v+A5zhMakL+d06YQZUjGK8XFUFzd4Z1bDtEu oOZw37jLMVI+8Mr0x1bkJy2BToTMiC0GyBi7VceXhxp8wlQNNIJGYhhDbWGsQ7KbqiGF Gb1c9PtA8AbLVICb5giqosKUxxJoyA7toSAfuirr6s48AUSZRXhGCPQiSI9g08MKI0WR 6fDBnfgem03YsiaB3CreYj14KlbwTCAkYJR2jHksLwbEdwiENad/qbedWqM7vhHU1yTp zgmA==
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=dyp8xgp8QvGwQ6tUqi4uDFsSgQRu4zPQDOn5gnVbM9A=; b=eLRIYUJsw9vKVyFrOjdoIsPLFxmTp4qvY6/6fCGkMrY2GgJXFRyN2KX3VpCHdNIbnz JYjKYKe5zTKpBfGntpuJ3vWfZPuIr8XZNkmRG2WYB8LkV6sESFlR3ng0EDDp6eevuwCJ hV44I7s/zlBxe741IWQ700nE1Oui69LCfnhXzc4E19oH8xkrMKV8GIcxKn9/PDynK947 Rau1/NvqMvEckMgfafmIyDTC2QpRXDViBQ5WCpUi6gSH/LlbzM94ADC9+0ZJcPR0Cju1 KymAbSp/TB6LVKpxsneLk9WyQLRvTsQHiFPvEZqO8/hGPViAjaUYRbL3l03iBZekLznF ctCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvejcg/2b2bcLoastsYIb6bf+7dLd629N2D2Zkk7ebWfI32ZpHujqFmCQpqqt8DMqg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id z68mr37993716pfb.13.1478371943762; Sat, 05 Nov 2016 11:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 128sm29215780pfy.4.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Nov 2016 11:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC
To: Christian Huitema <>, 'Michael Richardson' <>, 'IETF' <>
References: <> <> <> <> <022001d23789$03154ae0$093fe0a0$>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 07:52:29 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <022001d23789$03154ae0$093fe0a0$>
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: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 18:52:26 -0000

On 06/11/2016 06:21, Christian Huitema wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On Friday, November 4, 2016 8:43 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> There is another option: the people who live in a p=reject policy regime
>> could use a different email address for IETF participation.  It's not a
>> choice I like very much though.
> Been there, done that. It has quite a few nasty side effects. You easily end up also sending work related e-mail from a non-corporate account, for example when you forward an email from a WG list to a colleague at work. That's against many companies' internal policies. Thinks about consequences for example during legal actions, when the opposing party wants to discover all mail related to a particular topic. Does using a parallel server amounts to willful hiding of documents? Are you in contempt of court? Should you store your personal mail on company server so it can be searched? Bottom line, that's indeed not a choice I like much either.

Well, no, neither do I, but I did it at IBM and I do it now with my university
affiliation, for practical reasons that are nothing to with DMARC. And no finger
pointing here, but it's obvious that a good fraction of IETF participants do
so too, and have done for years.