Re: Will mailing lists survive DMARC?

Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> Tue, 29 April 2014 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 5AD9F1A08CD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 05:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 qDhssNOAyqD8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 05:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC10C1A08CB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 05:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyn-fg142.sth.netnod.se (dyn-fg142.sth.netnod.se [77.72.226.142]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E66B1FE5A; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:55:52 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BA1112BD-AC86-4836-98A4-8E7A5FBD8833"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: Will mailing lists survive DMARC?
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <20140429124528.GA1324@mx1.yitter.info>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:55:52 +0200
Message-Id: <6778109B-953A-45F4-92C9-1543E80A7F9C@frobbit.se>
References: <20140429124528.GA1324@mx1.yitter.info>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/E9FzRreGUIQShESiBqMjaNAao7U
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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, 29 Apr 2014 12:55:56 -0000

Ok, one more mail...but the last one (I claim)... ;-)

On 29 apr 2014, at 14:45, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> The issue is that the operators in this case are externalizing their
> problem.  The operator makes the decision and establishes a policy
> that causes mailing list postings from addresses inside the operator's
> domain of control to bounce.  The person who has to cope with those
> bounces is the mailing list manager, and _not_ the mail domain
> operator.  The cost of the side effect is not actually borne by the
> mail domain operator.  So there certainly is damage to someone other
> than the operator of the mail domain (or its customers).

The problem exists if A is publishing such a policy, B is acknowledging the policy, B is generating a bounce, and the bounce is hitting the mailing list provider.

I do not understand why a bounce should be generated (and not the incoming mail to B would be tagged as spam and/or null-routed).

That said, the result of the above is that B is unsubscribed from the mailing list due to large number of bounces, but that is because B is recognizing the policy A is publishing.

Do I get this right?

   Patrik